Schools & School Boards – Constitutional – Sound Basic Education – At Risk Children – Pre-K

Schools & School Boards – Constitutional – Sound Basic Education – At Risk Children – Pre-K (access required)

Hoke County Board of Education v. State Where the state chose a pre-kindergarten program, “More at Four” (MAF) to address the problems recognized in Leandro v. State, 346 N.C. 336, 488 S.E.2d 249 (1997) (Leandro I), and Hoke County Board of Education v. State, 358 N.C. 605, 599 S.E.2d 365 (2004) (Leandro II), the trial court had the authority to bar the General Assembly’s attempt to arbitrarily limit the number of at-risk children who could participate in MAF.

Login required


You have clicked on a link to information that is exclusive to NC Lawyers Weekly subscribers.

	Email Address: Password:	Already a paid subscriber but not registered for online access yet? For instructions on how to get premium web access, click here. Forgot Password?

Interested in Subscribing?

Start by choosing how you'd like your news delivered.

- Print and Digital -

- Digital Only -

Try North Carolina Lawyers Weekly for a month
for only $39 AND get a free whitepaper:

Exit strategy: a solo and
small-firm lawyer's guide to
the how and when of retirement

Click here to subscribe now.

POST A COMMENT

Comments are closed.

Most Important Opinions

Criminal Practice – Armed Robbery – Bullets (access required)

State v. Bell Even though defendant presented evidence that he unloaded the gun before he went into an insurance office, pointed the gun at the victim, and demanded money, there was also evidence that defendant was aware from almost the moment he left the insurance office that the police were watching him, he chose to flee, and he attempted to hide evidence by disposing of it in the woods.

Criminal Practice – Post-conviction DNA Testing – Attorneys – Appointment of Counsel (access required)

State v. Gardner Where defendant has provided no explanation as to why post-conviction DNA testing would be material to his defense, he has failed to establish a condition precedent to the trial court’s authority to appoint counsel for him under G.S. § 15A-269.

Criminal Practice – Murder – Motion to Continue – DNA Evidence — Constitutional – Ineffective Assistance – Jury Instructions (access required)

State v. King Where defense counsel failed to timely review discovery provided by the state and so failed to find an expert in time for trial, the trial court did not err or violate defendant’s constitutional rights in denying his motion to continue in order to secure an expert witness for trial.