Search for: "Johnson v. N. C. Department of Corrections" Results 1 - 20 of 55
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
20 Jan 2021, 8:49 am by Arnold Wadsworth Coggins
Opinion No. 20190748-CA Filed December 24, 2020 Second District Court, Farmington Department The Honorable Michael Edwards No. 134701192 Jonathan Hibshman, Marco Brown, and Rodney R. [read post]
25 Aug 2017, 11:09 am
Ralph, supra.The opinion then notes that the jury found Ralph guilty of constructive possession of a controlled substance, and the trial court sentenced him as a prior and persistent offender to eight years in the Missouri Department of Corrections. [read post]
1 Oct 2019, 6:14 am by Carolina Attorneys
The State dismissed one of the counts on 4 May 2017, leaving Defendant charged with two Class C and one Class H counts of felony embezzlement. [read post]
1 Sep 2014, 5:33 am
He patted [Davis] down and found a knife in one of his pockets, which was later identified as a knife stolen from the Dean residence.James Johnson testified he is a detective with the Lewisburg Police Department and executed a search warrant on [Davis] at his residence. [read post]
8 Jul 2021, 7:11 pm by Vercammen Law
N.J.S.A. 55:13B-6(n).Nearly twenty years later, in 2016, the Legislature enacted the Dementia Care Home Act, N.J.S.A. 26:2H-148 to -157. [read post]
24 Dec 2008, 6:10 pm
Decl. of Dana Johnson (Docket # 22) (Johnson Decl.); Decl. of Craig McLaughlin (Docket # 24) (McLaughlin Decl.) [read post]
17 Aug 2016, 6:55 am
And Rule 17(c)(2) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure states that “[o]n motion made promptly, the court may quash or modify the subpoena if compliance would be unreasonable or oppressive. [read post]
22 Jan 2008, 11:47 am
"Findlaw summaries [may] include opoinions that have not yet been released for publication and may be subject to modification, correction or withdrawl. [read post]
3 Feb 2024, 9:52 am by Marty Lederman
  And strangely, Part II-A of Professor Tillman’s brief devotes six pages to arguing (mistakenly) that “[i]n the Constitution of 1788, the President did not hold an ‘Office … under the United States,'” without arguing that the same is true in Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment—let alone that the alleged limited meaning of that phrase in 1788 is a reason for reversing the Colorado Supreme Court.) [read post]