Opinion · Nclaw North Carolina

DISPOSITION OF PETITIONS FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW, 353 N.C. 394 (2001)

DISPOSITION OF PETITIONS FOR DISCRETIONARY Rev., 353 N.C. 394 (2001), 547 S.E.2d 37 (N.C. 2001)

Type
Opinion
Court
Nclaw North Carolina
Jurisdiction
Nclaw
Date
2001-01-01
Topic
general

DISPOSITION OF PETITIONS FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW, 353 N.C. 394 (2001) 547 S.E.2d 37Supreme Court of North Carolina 2001 STATE v. PARKER No. 518P00 Case below: 140 N.C. App. 169 Motion by the Attorney General to dismiss the appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question allowed 1 February 2001. Petition by defendant for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 denied 1 February 2001. STATE v.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed DISPOSITION OF PETITIONS FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW, 353 N.C. 394 (2001). The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

DISPOSITION OF PETITIONS FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW,353 N.C. 394(2001)
547 S.E.2d 37
Supreme Court of North Carolina
2001
STATE v. PARKER

No. 518P00

Case below:140 N.C. App. 169

Motion by the Attorney General to dismiss the appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question allowed 1 February 2001. Petition by defendant for discretionary review pursuant to G.S.7A-31denied 1 February 2001.

STATE v. ROBERTS

No. 200P01

Case below: 143 N.C. App. ___ (20 March 2001)

Motion by the Attorney General for temporary stay allowed 6 April 2001.

STATE v. ROGERS

No. 52P01

Case below: 141 N.C. App. ___ (19 December 2000)

Petition by defendant for discretionary review pursuant to G.S.7A-31denied 1 March 2001.

STATE v. SALMON

No. 570P00

Case below: 140 N.C. App. ___ (21 November 2000)

Motion by the Attorney General to dismiss the appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question allowed 1 March 2001. Petition by defendant for discretionary review pursuant to G.S.7A-31denied 1 March 2001.

STATE v. SCURLOCK

No. 166P01

Case below: 142 N.C. App. ___ (6 February 2001)

Petition by defendant pro se for writ of certiorari to review the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 5 April 2001.Page 395