North Carolina Lawyers Weekly

Even though the prosecutor did not provide defendant with the trial calendar contemplated by G.S. § 7A-49.4(e) at least 10 working days before trial, since defendant’s trial had been scheduled months earlier – giving him ample time to prepare – ...

  The mere act of an armed kidnapper turning his back, without more, is not a conscious, willful action on the part of the kidnapper to assure that his victim is released in a place of safety. We find no ...

Although, during his closing argument, defense counsel may have admitted an element of the offense of assault on a female, he did not expressly concede the crime charged or all the other elements of the charged crime. Accordingly, defendant is ...

Defendant entitled to a new trial when the trial court failed to properly advise defendant of the consequences of waiving counsel and where defendant did not engage in conduct that was of a combative or dilatory nature that would result ...

Naming the victim as “Sears Roebuck and Company” in a larceny indictment was sufficient to impart that the victim was a corporation capable of owning property. We find no error in defendant’s conviction for felonious larceny. Defendant was indicted for ...

  The respondent-mother and her boyfriend complied with their DSS plans, and there was no evidence that the mother had acted inconsistently with her constitutionally protected right to parent. Therefore, the record does not support the trial court’s order that ...

In a matter of first impression, the court decides that a nearly four-year delay by the respondent-agency in placing petitioner’s name on the Responsible Individuals List impermissibly prejudiced petitioner’s protected liberty interest. We affirm the trial court’s order, which determined ...

Although a district court made errors in certifying a defendant class, including failing to timely appoint class counsel or ensuring the requirements of Federal Rule 23 were satisfied, the objecting parties’ failure to timely object to these defects and the ...

Years after the expiration of the statute of limitations, homeowners can still sue lenders for allegedly violating an anti-kickback law because they plausibly alleged the lenders concealed their conduct sufficient to toll the statute of limitations. Background Each of the ...

Plaintiffs could not bring a claim for damages against ICE agents who allegedly violated their Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights because recognizing a Bivens remedy in this context was unwarranted given Congress’s refusal to provide such a remedy in any of its ...