State v. Sisk
483 S.E.2d 440, 345 N.C. 749, 1997 N.C. LEXIS 185
Opinion
The decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed for the reasons stated in the majority opinion by Judge Johnson. We hold that defendant’s petition for discretionary review as to an additional issue was improvidently allowed.
AFFIRMED IN PART; DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IMPROVIDENTLY ALLOWED IN PART.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
State v. Sisk, 483 S.E.2d 440, 345 N.C. 749, 1997 N.C. LEXIS 185 (N.C. 1997).
483 S.E.2d 440 (State v. Sisk) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
State v. Stroud
815 S.E.2d 705 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2018)
State v. Westbrook
623 S.E.2d 73 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2005)
State v. Lawson
619 S.E.2d 410 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2005)
State v. Whittenburg
605 S.E.2d 11 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2004)
State v. Lewis
603 S.E.2d 559 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2004)
State v. Clark
598 S.E.2d 213 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2004)
State v. Bowens
535 S.E.2d 870 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2000)
Allen v. Roberts Const. Co., Inc.
532 S.E.2d 534 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2000)
State v. Grady
524 S.E.2d 75 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2000)