Thompson v. Thompson

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Thompson v. Thompson

215 S.E.2d 606, 288 N.C. 120, 1975 N.C. LEXIS 889

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedJune 26, 1975

DocketNo. 121

StatusPublished

This text of 215 S.E.2d 606 (Thompson v. Thompson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Thompson v. Thompson, 215 S.E.2d 606, 288 N.C. 120, 1975 N.C. LEXIS 889 (N.C. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The sole question presented by this appeal is whether defendant is entitled to a jury trial in a criminal contempt proceeding.

The identical question was considered and answered in the negative in Blue Jeans Corporation v. Clothing Workers, 275 N.C. 503, 169 S.E. 2d 867. We reaffirm that well reasoned and scholarly opinion by Justice Huskins. See also Codispoti v. Pennsylvania, 418 U.S. 506, 94 S.Ct. 2687, 41 L.Ed. 2d 912; Taylor v. Hayes, 418 U.S. 488, 94 S.Ct. 2697, 41 L.Ed. 2d 897.

G.S. 7A-30(1) provides that there may be an appeal of right to this Court from decisions of the Court of Appeals which directly involve a substantial question' arising under the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of this State. However, our. decisions interpreting this statute require- that an appellant'must either allege and show the existence of a real and substantial constitutional question which has not already been the subject of conclusive judicial determination or suffer dismissal. State v. Colson, 274 N.C. 295, 163 S.E. 2d 376, cert. denied, 393 U.S. 1087, 89 S.Ct. 876, 21 L.Ed. 2d 780.

We hold that appellant has failed to show the existence of a substantial constitutional question which has not already been the subject of conclusive judicial determination, and therefore plaintiff’s motion to dismiss is allowed.

Appeal dismissed.

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

Per Curiam.

The sole question presented by this appeal is whether defendant is entitled to a jury trial in a criminal contempt proceeding.

The identical question was considered and answered in the negative in Blue Jeans Corporation v. Clothing Workers, 275 N.C. 503, 169 S.E. 2d 867. We reaffirm that well reasoned and scholarly opinion by Justice Huskins. See also Codispoti v. Pennsylvania, 418 U.S. 506, 94 S.Ct. 2687, 41 L.Ed. 2d 912; Taylor v. Hayes, 418 U.S. 488, 94 S.Ct. 2697, 41 L.Ed. 2d 897.

G.S. 7A-30(1) provides that there may be an appeal of right to this Court from decisions of the Court of Appeals which directly involve a substantial question' arising under the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of this State. However, our. decisions interpreting this statute require- that an appellant'must either allege and show the existence of a real and substantial constitutional question which has not already been the subject of conclusive judicial determination or suffer dismissal. State v. Colson, 274 N.C. 295, 163 S.E. 2d 376, cert. denied, 393 U.S. 1087, 89 S.Ct. 876, 21 L.Ed. 2d 780.

We hold that appellant has failed to show the existence of a substantial constitutional question which has not already been the subject of conclusive judicial determination, and therefore plaintiff’s motion to dismiss is allowed.

Appeal dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

215 S.E.2d 606, 288 N.C. 120, 1975 N.C. LEXIS 889, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thompson-v-thompson-nc-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack