North Carolina Lawyers Weekly

Centro Tepeyac v. Montgomery County, Md. A Maryland limited-services pregnancy services center wins an injunction against enforcement of a local ordinance that would require it to post a sign saying it did not have a “licensed medical professional on staff”; the 4th Circuit reverses the district court’s denial of an injunction to the center.

Tagged with: Constitutional Free Speech

Greater Baltimore Center for Pregnancy Concerns Inc. v. St. Brigid’s Roman Catholic Congregation Inc. The 4th Circuit upholds summary judgment for a Baltimore “Pregnancy Center” on its challenge to a local ordinance the Center said violated its free speech rights by compelling it to post signs saying the Center did not provide or make referral for abortion or birth control services.

Tagged with: Constitutional Free Speech

Wag More Dogs LLC v. Cozart An Arlington County sign ordinance that required a doggy daycare business to remove a 960-square foot painting of cartoon dogs on the side of the daycare’s business passes constitutional muster as a content-neutral restriction on speech that survives intermediate scrutiny, the 4th Circuit says.

Tagged with: Constitutional Freedom of Speech Municipal

Waste Industries USA v. State New landfill legislation affected in-state and out-of-state waste equally and was rationally related to public health and other benefits. It did not violate the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Tagged with: Administrative Constitutional Environmental Municipal Real Property

Vuncannon v. North Carolina Institute of Christian Development, Inc. Plaintiffs’ standing to bring this action (relating to the defendant-church’s sale of real property) depends on plaintiffs’ membership in the church. Defendants deny that plaintiffs are members of the church and provided the trial court with a document showing that plaintiffs had terminated their membership prior to the filing of this lawsuit by violating membership requirements established in the church’s bylaws. The trial court correctly held that it lacked jurisdiction to determine whether plaintiffs are members of the church.

Tagged with: Civil Practice Constitutional Freedom of Religion subject-matter jurisdiction

Edwards v. Morrow We read G.S. § 130A-496 to exempt private, nonprofit country clubs from the general prohibition on smoking in restaurants and bars; however, private, for-profit country clubs are not exempt from the ban. Given the General Assembly’s motive for enacting the ban – protection of the public from secondhand smoke – this is a rational, and therefore constitutional, distinction.

Tagged with: Constitutional equal protection Exemptions Smoking Ban

Professional Solutions Financial Services v. Richard Yeager & Associates, D.D.S., P.A. Where plaintiff obtained a default judgment against defendants in Iowa and sought to enforce it here, our trial court was required to give full faith and credit to the Iowa judgment unless the judgment violated the public policy of Iowa, not the public policy of North Carolina.

Tagged with: Constitutional Contract Full Faith & Credit

Sandhill Amusements v. State ex rel. Purdue The trial court determined that G.S. § 14-3-6.4 was constitutional, dismissed plaintiffs’ complaint for a declaration that their sweepstakes systems did not violate N.C. gaming or gambling laws, and dissolved a preliminary injunction prohibiting defendants from taking enforcement action against plaintiffs. Since Hest Technologies, Inc. v. State ex rel. Purdue [Lawyers Weekly No. 12-07-0254] declared § 14-306.4 void as unconstitutionally overbroad, we must reverse the trial court’s order.

Tagged with: Constitutional First Amendment Free Speech

Hest Technologies, Inc. v. State ex rel. Purdue G.S. § 14-306.4 does not outlaw sweepstakes, but it prohibits the sweepstakes company from revealing results via a videogame. The statute violates the sweepstakes company’s freedom of speech.

Tagged with: Constitutional First Amendment Free Speech

Monitech Inc. v. Robertson Since plaintiff - a longtime vendor of breath alcohol ignition interlock devices — has no property interest in the N.C. DMV’s 2008 guidelines for certification and request for certification (the 2008 RFC), plaintiff lacks standing to challenge DMV’s termination of the 2008 RFC.

Tagged with: Constitutional