 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
North Carolina v. Tucker12/4/1984
:
The statute does not require the court to give a purely advisory opinion which the parties might, so to speak, put on ice to be used if and when occasion might arise. . . .
"It is no part of the function of the courts, in the exercise of the judicial power vested in them by the constitution, to give advisory opinions, or to answer moot questions, or to maintain a legal bureau for those who may chance to be interested, for the time being, in the pursuit of some academic matter" . . . . "The judicial power does not extend to a determination of abstract questions." (Citations omitted.)
Tryon v. Power Co., 222 N.C. at 204, 22 S.E.2d at 453.
In the interest of keeping our decisions within the traditional judicial function, we must decline the invitation to exercise our supervisory authority and reach the merits of the remaining substantive questions presented by the State's complaint at this time. The questions presented by these cases will have to await decision by the orderly process of judgment and appeal. For this reason also we decline to grant the State's request that we certify the matter back to the superior court for findings of fact and certification back to this Court for final decision in the cases of defendants Johnson, Hartwig, Tew, Henry, Howard, Crow and Massey.
We affirm the trial judge's order dismissing the complaint and petition against all defendants.
Affirmed.
Disposition
Affirmed.
Counsel FOOTNOTES
1 We have not listed as counsel appearing in this appeal those attorneys representing individual named defendants who did not either file briefs on their own behalf, or adopt the arguments presented by those who did.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 North Carolina DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|