Search for: "In re G.S."
Results 1 - 20
of 292
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
15 Apr 2024, 5:39 am
In re Rikard, 161 N.C.App. 150 (2003), In re J.F., 237 N.C.App. 218 (2014), In re D.A.H., 277 N.C.App. 16 (2021). [read post]
12 Mar 2024, 7:37 am
In re Kivett, 309 N.C. 635, 670, 309 S.E.2d 442, 462 (1983). [read post]
22 Feb 2024, 7:28 am
In re Laliveres, COA23-742, ___ N.C. [read post]
19 Feb 2024, 3:00 am
G.S. 15A-511(c)(3) (emphasis supplied). [read post]
3 Jan 2024, 7:15 am
The trial court denied this petition, relying on In re Borden, 216 N.C. [read post]
11 Dec 2023, 8:31 am
G.S. 20-140.4(a)(2). [read post]
17 Oct 2023, 5:51 am
., G.S. 20-139.1 (c1) (analysis of blood or urine in an implied consent case); G.S. 90-95(g) (drug analysis reports); G.S. 8-58.20 (any lab report). [read post]
23 Aug 2023, 5:40 am
We’re gearing up to do that—if you’re interested, let us know. [read post]
22 Aug 2023, 5:42 am
” In re E.S., 191 N.C. [read post]
3 Aug 2023, 8:04 am
When the victim answered, defendant told her “[i]f you’re still in Asheville, I’m gonna try and send you some money,” and “I got $1,000 for ya. [read post]
27 Jun 2023, 1:48 pm
The Bulletin describes these cases, culminating with In re D.L.D, 203 N.C. [read post]
15 Jun 2023, 11:48 am
G.S. 15-1(a). [read post]
14 Jun 2023, 8:22 am
Requiring much longer periods of enrollment may (re)implicate those concerns. [read post]
2 May 2023, 6:10 am
Compare the challenged South Carolina laws to North Carolina’s G.S. 14-288.4(6). [read post]
1 May 2023, 5:00 am
’s state court claims (predicated on such theories as “res judicata” and “collateral estoppel"). [read post]
1 May 2023, 5:00 am
’s claims (predicated on “res judicata” and “collateral estoppel” grounds). [read post]
3 Apr 2023, 1:58 pm
G.S. 90-95(a)(3) makes it unlawful to “possess a controlled substance. [read post]
29 Mar 2023, 11:29 am
In re S.S., 193 N.C. [read post]
9 Mar 2023, 7:30 am
The plan would conclude with the pair being pulled over as they re-entered the state. [read post]
28 Feb 2023, 12:35 pm
In re Burrus, 275 N.C. 517 (1969), G.S. 7B-2412. [read post]
