Search for: "Super v. North Carolina"
Results 61 - 80
of 255
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
21 Nov 2022, 3:00 am
appeared first on North Carolina Criminal Law. [read post]
4 Oct 2010, 4:30 am
Super. [read post]
8 Jan 2015, 9:44 am
Supp.2d 797, 801 (S.D.N.Y. 2011).North Carolina: Harris v. [read post]
31 Aug 2015, 10:25 am
appeared first on North Carolina Criminal Law. [read post]
15 Mar 2009, 2:04 pm
Super. [read post]
18 Jul 2013, 1:30 pm
Mar. 20, 2013), invalidating a North Carolina statute that required up to one-third of any damages recovered by a Medicaid beneficiary to be repaid to the state. [read post]
5 Oct 2018, 3:00 am
The Greensboro News & Record reports that the North Carolina Supreme Court’s reversal of State v. [read post]
5 Aug 2008, 12:42 am
Super. [read post]
2 Mar 2015, 3:54 pm
No North Carolina statute answers these questions directly. [read post]
12 Oct 2018, 4:05 am
LEXIS 164821 (ED NC, Sept. 26, 2018), a North Carolina federal district court dismissed a complaint by a Wiccan inmate that group worship was not provided because of too few adherents to satisfy the minimum requirement for providing it.In Jenkins v. [read post]
6 Jun 2008, 9:50 pm
Super. [read post]
6 May 2015, 7:36 am
appeared first on North Carolina Criminal Law. [read post]
16 Mar 2021, 5:15 pm
Unfair and deceptive trade practice under North Carolina law? [read post]
11 Aug 2015, 8:34 am
He graduated with Honors in Political Science from the University of North Carolina and from Yale Law School, where he was an editor of the Yale Law Journal. [read post]
4 Aug 2015, 8:43 am
Opinions are like the Supreme Court’s Super Ego. [read post]
31 Jul 2015, 6:37 am
Red light cameras have been rare in North Carolina in recent years. [read post]
22 Nov 2010, 9:13 am
Gerhardt Director of the Center for Law and Government at the University of North Carolina School of Law; Prof. [read post]
24 Apr 2014, 10:21 am
The post Maybe Implied Consent is Real After All appeared first on North Carolina Criminal Law. [read post]
29 Aug 2011, 6:28 am
North Carolina, in which the Court held that a child’s age is relevant to determining whether the child is “in custody” for Miranda purposes. [read post]
