Sandhill Amusements, Inc. v. State
| Decision Date | 14 December 2012 |
| Docket Number | No. 170A11–2.,170A11–2. |
| Citation | 734 S.E.2d 570 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | SANDHILL AMUSEMENTS, INC.; Carolina Industrial Supplies; J & F Amusements, Inc.; J & J Vending, Inc.; Matthews Vending Co.; Patton Brothers, Inc.; Trent Brothers Music Co., Inc.; S & S Music Co., Inc.; Old North State Amusements, Inc.; and Uwharrie Fuels, LLC v. STATE of North Carolina; Governor Beverly Perdue, in her official capacity; North Carolina Department of Crime Control and Public Safety; Secretary of Crime Control and Public Safety Bryan E. Beatty, in his official capacity; Alcohol Law Enforcement Division; Director of Alcohol Law Enforcement Division William Chandler, in his official capacity. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A–30(2) from the decision of a divided panel of the Court of Appeals, ––– N.C.App. ––––, 724 S.E.2d 614 (2012), reversing an order entered on 29 November 2010 by Judge Paul C. Ridgeway in Superior Court, Wake County. Heard in the Supreme Court on 17 October 2012.
Daughtry, Woodard, Lawrence & Starling, Smithfield, by Kelly K. Daughtry, for plaintiff-appellees.
Roy Cooper, Attorney General, by John F. Maddrey, Solicitor General, and Hal F. Askins, Special Deputy Attorney General, for defendant-appellants.
For the reasons stated in Hest Technologies, Inc. v. State ex rel. Perdue, ––– N.C. ––––, ––– S.E.2d ––––, 2012 WL 6218202 (2012), the decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed.
REVERSED.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gift Surplus, LLC v. State
...same First Amendment argument, which was rejected by this Court for the reasons stated in Hest . Sandhill Amusements, Inc. v. State , 366 N.C. 323, 324, 734 S.E.2d 570 (2012) (per curiam). Although the record shows Sandhill has a long history as a video-gaming company, in that lawsuit it ar......
-
Hest Techs., Inc. v. State
...are entertainment and thus merit full First Amendment protection. Plaintiffs in the companion case, Sandhill Amusements, Inc. v. State of North Carolina, 366 N.C. 323, 734 S.E.2d 570 (2012), assert that the law is primarily a restriction on the announcement of the sweepstakes result, which ......
- Sandhill Amusements, Inc. v. Northcarolina