State v. Watlington
228 S.E.2d 457, 290 N.C. 666, 1976 N.C. LEXIS 1163
This text of 228 S.E.2d 457 (State v. Watlington) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Bluebook
State v. Watlington, 228 S.E.2d 457, 290 N.C. 666, 1976 N.C. LEXIS 1163 (N.C. 1976).
Opinion
STATE of North Carolina
v.
Joyce Marie WATLINGTON.
Supreme Court of North Carolina.
A. Carl Penney, for defendant.
Rufus L. Edmisten, Atty. Gen., Norma S. Harrell, Associate Atty., for the State.
Petition by defendant for discretionary review under GS 7A-31, N.C.App., 226 S.E.2d 186. Denied. Motion of the Attorney General to dismiss the appeal for lack of a substantial constitutional question. Allowed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
State v. Watlington
226 S.E.2d 186 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1976)
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Bluebook (online)
228 S.E.2d 457, 290 N.C. 666, 1976 N.C. LEXIS 1163, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-watlington-nc-1976.