James R. Walker, Appellant, v. State of North Carolina and City of Charlotte, Appellees., 372 F.2d 129 (4th Cir. 1967)

Federal Circuits, 4th Cir. (January 16, 1967)

Docket number: 10962


Permanent Link: http://vlex.com/vid/walker-north-carolina-city-charlotte-36720897
Id. vLex: VLEX-36720897

Click here to download this article in graphic format (Acrobat Reader)

Document language

Search in this document

Sponsored Ads:


FeediconRSS What's this?

Cited by:

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Cir. - Notice: Sixth Circuit Rule 24(C) States that Citation of Unpublished Dispositions is Disfavored Except for Establishing Res Judicata, Estoppel, or the Law of the Case and Requires Service of Copies of Cited Unpublished Dispositions of the Sixth Circuit. Douglas E. Billings; Karen S. Billings, Petitioner-Appellants, v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Respondent-Appellee., 974 F.2d 1338 (6th Cir. 1992)

US Code - Title 28: Judiciary and Judicial Procedure - 28 USC 2254 - Sec. 2254. State custody; remedies in Federal courts

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Cir. - E. Vance Walters and Kae L. Walters, Petitioners, v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Respondent., 383 F.2d 922 (6th Cir. 1967)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Cir. - Leo M. Eisel, Appellant, v. Secretary of the Army. Gary S. Gelber, Appellant, v. Secretary of the Air Force., 477 F.2d 1251 (D.C. Cir. 1973)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Cir. - United States of America Ex Rel. Chester Wojtycha, Appellant, v. Walter Hopkins, Chief Probation Officer, Hudson County, New Jersey, and Geoffrey Gaulkin, Hudson County Prosecutor, Appellees., 517 F.2d 420 (3rd Cir. 1975)

Text:

James R. Walker, Leaksville, N. C., appellant pro se.

Paul L. Whitfield, Asst. City Atty., City of Charlotte, for appellees.

Before HAYNSWORTH, Chief Judge, and KAUFMAN and RUSSELL, District Judges.

PER CURIAM.

In this habeas corpus proceeding, Walker attacks a conditionally suspended sentence imposed upon him for a deliberate violation of a building code. He asserts unconstitutionality of the relevant statutes of North Carolina and the applicable sections of Charlotte's Housing Code as arbitrary and unreasonable. This is premised upon a construction of their requirement of a building permit as a prerequisite to any and all repairs, however trivial, by a householder to his residence.

If the code was applied administratively to require formal permits for trivial repairs, a serious question of its constitutionality, as applied, would arise, but this record does not present the question. The repair and remodeling work undertaken by Walker was both major and extensive, and well within the reasonable reach of the code.

For the reasons stated in the opinion of the District Court,* we find no unconstitutional infirmity in the building code as applied in this case.

Affirmed.

Notes:

* Walker v. State of North Carolina, W.D.N.C., 262 F.Supp. 102

Sponsored Ads:




Activate your free trial now

Make your order

Need help? Contact us

Try vLex for FREE for 3 days

Access legal information from United States including:

  • Constitutions
  • Forms and Contracts
  • Legal Books and Journals
  • Case Law
  • News and Business
  • Regulations
  • U.S. Code

Try vLex without any commitment for 3 days and see why you need it.

3

days of Free Access