Court Opinion

ID: 9856598
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 06:51:52.72406+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:39:48.808388
License: Public Domain

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.