 |
|
 |
|
|
Access State and Federal Case Law, plus U.S. Supreme Court cases — for free!
Click on any of the case links below to view the full text of that case — for free — through lexisONE®, a legal research and news service from LexisNexis®. Login is required — registration is free!
While viewing the full text of the case, select from upgrade options to Shepardize® or view the fully-featured case on lexis.com including Core Terms, Shepard's® Signals, Case Summaries, Print Options, and more. lexisONE offers access to comprehensive content and flexible services for faster, more efficient legal research. Review our flexible LexisNexis® subscriptions offered through daily, weekly or monthly research packages.
| Cater v. Barker, No. 546A05,
SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA, March 3, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| In re J.W., No. 592A05,
SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA, March 3, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| In re P.L.P., No. 521A05,
SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA, March 3, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Loredo v. CSX Transp., Inc., No. 297A05,
SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA, March 3, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Munn v. N.C. State Univ., No. 567A05,
SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA, March 3, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| N.C. DOT v. Haywood County, No. 628PA04,
SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA, March 3, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court's grant of directed verdict as to the county's purported expert testimony was not an abuse of discretion because the trial court's threshold determination that the experts' method of proof in the condemnation action lacked sufficient reliability was neither arbitrary nor the result of an unreasoned decision.
|
|||||
| Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Bourlon, No. 551A05,
SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA, March 3, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| State v. Allen, No. 115A04,
SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA, March 3, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a capital murder case, the State did not violate defendant's right to a fair trial, under the Fourteenth Amendment, where the State did not know that an eyewitness's testimony was knowingly false; the witness was a confessed drug addict and under the influence of drugs at the time of the murder.
|
|||||
| State v. Ethridge, No. 134A05,
SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA, March 3, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| Copyright© 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
