# State v. Warren

> Supreme Court of North Carolina · June 10, 1960 · 252 N.C. 690

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9856598

## Case

- **Full name:** State v. E. D. Warren
- **Court:** Supreme Court of North Carolina
- **Decided:** June 10, 1960
- **Citations:** 252 N.C. 690; 114 S.E.2d 660; 1960 N.C. LEXIS 637
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by RodmaN
- **Judges:** Mooee, Rodmán
- **Cited by:** 65 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9856598

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- noting that North Carolina is “not bound by the decisions of the Courts of the other States,” but that “overwhelming authority” in favor of a certain interpretation of law is “highly persuasive”
- noting that “[t]he legislative department is the judge, within reasonable limits, of what the public welfare requires, and the wisdom of its enactments is not the concern of the courts”
- noting that “the real estate business affects a substantial public interest and may be regulated for the purpose of protecting and promoting the general welfare of the people”

## Opinion text

RodmáN, J.,
dissenting: The Court declares its approval of the principles enunciated in S. v. Harris, 216 N.C. 746 ; Palmer v. Smith, 229 N.C. 612 ; S. v. Ballance, 229 N.C. 764 ; Roller v. Allen, 245 N.C. 516 ; and S. v. Brown, 250 N.C. 54 . I likewise express my complete approval of what is said in those cases, and because I am unable to draw any logical distinction between the act here upheld andi the acts there held void, my vote is to reverse.
I think an additional reason requiring reversal is the failure of the act to prescribe any standards which the Board must employ in determining the right to a license. The Legislature cannot delegate its discretionary power. It must prescribe standards and, having prescribed the standards, may authorize an agency to ascertain the facts. Harvell v. Scheidt, 249 N.C. 699 ; Utilities Com. v. State and Utilities Com. v. Telegraph Co., 239 N.C. 333 ; Coastal Highway v. Turnpike Authority, 237 N.C. 52 . The Licensing Board is authorized to require an examination to determine applicants’ “honesty, truthfulness, integrity and competency.” Unless competency is synonymous with honesty, truthfulness, and integrity, no standard is prescribed to measure competency, and such failure under our decisions is fatal.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9856598. Public record. Not legal advice.