Court Opinion

ID: 9589077
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:41:21.963609+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:01:00.875610
License: Public Domain

Justice Billings
dissenting.
In discussing the rules of statutory construction, the majority opinion overlooks the one rule which I believe decides this case and requires that we affirm the Court of Appeals. As stated in 73 Am. Jur. 2d Statutes § 143 (1974): “The interpretation of a statute by the highest courts of a state by which the statute was enacted is generally regarded as an integral part of the statute, . . . . A statutory construction, once made and followed, should never be altered upon the changed view of new personnel of the court,” citing Burtt Will, 353 Pa. 217, 44 A. 2d 670 (1945). This is obviously because the legislature has the power, in fact the duty, to change or clarify its statutory provisions if the courts misconstrue them. In the absence of legislation amending a statute following the court’s interpretation of it, the conclusion is inescapable that the interpretation is consistent with legislative intent.
Although the majority seems to concede that application of Perry v. Furniture Co., 296 N.C. 88, 249 S.E. 2d 397 (1978) would require that we affirm the Court of Appeals, the opinion of the majority says: “We believe the time has come to revisit and reconsider the interpretation given to the ‘in lieu of clause.” Since 1978 when Perry was decided, the North Carolina General Assembly has not seen fit to amend the portion of N.C.G.S. § 97-31 which was construed therein and which controls this case. Because I believe that it is the province of the legislature to change a statute once construed by this Court, not the province of this Court to vacillate regarding the construction to be given to legislation, I dissent from the majority opinion. I would follow Perry and affirm the Court of Appeals.
Chief Justice BRANCH and Justice MEYER join in this dissenting opinion.