State v. Wajna

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

State v. Wajna

222 S.E.2d 470, 28 N.C. App. 661, 1976 N.C. App. LEXIS 2796

CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina

DecidedMarch 3, 1976

DocketNo. 754SC828

StatusPublished

This text of 222 S.E.2d 470 (State v. Wajna) 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

State v. Wajna, 222 S.E.2d 470, 28 N.C. App. 661, 1976 N.C. App. LEXIS 2796 (N.C. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

PARKER, Judge.

The motions to quash should have been allowed on authority of State v. Tenore, 280 N.C. 238, 185 S.E. 2d 644 (1972). Although that case involved a violation of an Onslow County Ordinance while the present case involves a violation of a Jacksonville City Ordinance, insofar as material to the question presented by the motions to quash the two cases present essentially the same situations. We note that the City Ordinance here involved was enacted 23 January 1970 and the Onslow County Ordinance involved in State v. Tenore, supra, was enacted effective on 27 April 1970. Thus, both ordinances were enacted when G.S. 14-190 was in effect. “It is immaterial that, subsequently, G.S. 14-190 was repealed, for the repeal of a state-wide law which, during its life, prohibited the enactment of a county ordinance is prospective in this respect and does not breathe life into an ordinance which was beyond the authority of the ordaining body when it was adopted.” State v. Tenore, supra, pp. 248-249.

Reversed.

Chief Judge Brock and Judge Arnold concur.

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

PARKER, Judge.

The motions to quash should have been allowed on authority of State v. Tenore, 280 N.C. 238, 185 S.E. 2d 644 (1972). Although that case involved a violation of an Onslow County Ordinance while the present case involves a violation of a Jacksonville City Ordinance, insofar as material to the question presented by the motions to quash the two cases present essentially the same situations. We note that the City Ordinance here involved was enacted 23 January 1970 and the Onslow County Ordinance involved in State v. Tenore, supra, was enacted effective on 27 April 1970. Thus, both ordinances were enacted when G.S. 14-190 was in effect. “It is immaterial that, subsequently, G.S. 14-190 was repealed, for the repeal of a state-wide law which, during its life, prohibited the enactment of a county ordinance is prospective in this respect and does not breathe life into an ordinance which was beyond the authority of the ordaining body when it was adopted.” State v. Tenore, supra, pp. 248-249.

Reversed.

Chief Judge Brock and Judge Arnold concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

222 S.E.2d 470, 28 N.C. App. 661, 1976 N.C. App. LEXIS 2796, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-wajna-ncctapp-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack