Parker v. Board of Alcoholic Control

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Parker v. Board of Alcoholic Control

208 S.E.2d 727, 23 N.C. App. 330, 1974 N.C. App. LEXIS 2084

CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina

DecidedOctober 16, 1974

DocketNo. 7410SC733

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 208 S.E.2d 727 (Parker v. Board of Alcoholic Control) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Parker v. Board of Alcoholic Control, 208 S.E.2d 727, 23 N.C. App. 330, 1974 N.C. App. LEXIS 2084 (N.C. Ct. App. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

BRITT, Judge.

Petitioner’s sole exception is to the signing and entry of Judge McKinnon’s judgment.

An exception to the signing and the entry of the judgment presents the question of whether error of law appears on the face of the record proper, which includes whether the facts found or admitted support the judgment and whether the judgment is regular in form, but the exception does not present for review the findings of fact or the sufficiency of the evidence to support them. Hall v. Board of Elections, 280 N.C. 600, 187 S.E. 2d 52 (1972) ; Sternberger v. Tannenbaum, 273 N.C. 658, 161 S.E. 2d 116 (1968) ; and, Jackson v. Collins, 9 N.C. App. 548, 176 S.E. 2d 878 (1970).

The findings of the Board of Alcoholic Control, after proper hearing, are conclusive if supported by competent, material and substantial evidence. C’est Bon, Inc. v. Board of Alcoholic Control, 279 N.C. 140, 181 S.E. 2d 448 (1971) ; Keg, Inc. v. Board of Alcoholic Control, 277 N.C. 450, 177 S.E. 2d 861 (1970) ; Freeman v. Board of Alcoholic Control, 264 N.C. 320, 141 S.E. 2d 499 (1965) ; Bergos v. Board of Alcoholic Control, 15 N.C. App. 169, 189 S.E. 2d 494 (1972).

We hold that the facts found or admitted fully support the respondent’s order and the judgment appealed from, and that the order and judgment are regular in form. No error of law appears.

Affirmed.

Judges Hedrick and Baley concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

BRITT, Judge.

Petitioner’s sole exception is to the signing and entry of Judge McKinnon’s judgment.

An exception to the signing and the entry of the judgment presents the question of whether error of law appears on the face of the record proper, which includes whether the facts found or admitted support the judgment and whether the judgment is regular in form, but the exception does not present for review the findings of fact or the sufficiency of the evidence to support them. Hall v. Board of Elections, 280 N.C. 600, 187 S.E. 2d 52 (1972) ; Sternberger v. Tannenbaum, 273 N.C. 658, 161 S.E. 2d 116 (1968) ; and, Jackson v. Collins, 9 N.C. App. 548, 176 S.E. 2d 878 (1970).

The findings of the Board of Alcoholic Control, after proper hearing, are conclusive if supported by competent, material and substantial evidence. C’est Bon, Inc. v. Board of Alcoholic Control, 279 N.C. 140, 181 S.E. 2d 448 (1971) ; Keg, Inc. v. Board of Alcoholic Control, 277 N.C. 450, 177 S.E. 2d 861 (1970) ; Freeman v. Board of Alcoholic Control, 264 N.C. 320, 141 S.E. 2d 499 (1965) ; Bergos v. Board of Alcoholic Control, 15 N.C. App. 169, 189 S.E. 2d 494 (1972).

We hold that the facts found or admitted fully support the respondent’s order and the judgment appealed from, and that the order and judgment are regular in form. No error of law appears.

Affirmed.

Judges Hedrick and Baley concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

208 S.E.2d 727, 23 N.C. App. 330, 1974 N.C. App. LEXIS 2084, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/parker-v-board-of-alcoholic-control-ncctapp-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack