Search for: "State of North Carolina v. United States" Results 721 - 740 of 2,927
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
23 Mar 2020, 3:20 pm by Bona Law PC
One state, North Carolina, has already temporarily lifted its certificate of need law solely as it relates to hospital bed capacity. [read post]
26 Sep 2016, 7:24 am by Jeff Welty
Although Rodriguez itself did not directly criticize or question Mimms, the North Carolina Court of Appeals has issued several opinions that read Rodriguez as undermining, or at least limiting, Mimms: In State v. [read post]
26 Sep 2016, 7:24 am by Jeff Welty
Although Rodriguez itself did not directly criticize or question Mimms, the North Carolina Court of Appeals has issued several opinions that read Rodriguez as undermining, or at least limiting, Mimms: In State v. [read post]
14 Dec 2015, 10:37 am by Jeff Welty
North Carolina’s federal courts are bound by Schleifer v. [read post]
30 Sep 2013, 4:50 am
Cooper, 747 S.E.2d 398 (North Carolina Court of Appeals 2013). [read post]
15 Oct 2015, 1:16 pm by Shea Denning
Herndon and Pleading the Fifth appeared first on North Carolina Criminal Law. [read post]
31 Aug 2018, 12:16 pm by Overhauser Law Offices, LLC
Indianapolis, Indiana – Attorneys for Plaintiff, InVue Security Products Inc. of Charlotte, North Carolina, filed suit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging that Defendant, Mobile Tech, Inc. d/b/a Mobile Technologies Inc. and MTI, formerly known as Merchandising Technologies, Inc. of Hillsboro, Oregon, but incorporated in Indiana, infringed its rights in United States Patent No. 10,062,266, (the “‘266 patent”) for a… [read post]
8 Sep 2022, 7:57 am by Alex Phipps
This post summarizes the published criminal opinions from the North Carolina Court of Appeals released on September 6, 2022. [read post]
16 Jul 2024, 6:06 am by Jeff Welty
The Supreme Court’s big Second Amendment case this term was United States v. [read post]
24 Feb 2021, 4:48 am by Y. Michael Yin, JD
  Holding:   Rationale: Defendant contended that his due process rights, afforded to him under the United States Constitution as well as the North Carolina Constitution, were violated due to the 19-month delay in entry of the ED Order from the hearing date. [read post]