Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The North Carolina Register includes information about state agency rules, administrative rules, executive orders and other notices, and is published bimonthly. [6] The State of North Carolina Administrative Code (NCAC) contains all the rules adopted by the state agencies and occupational licensing boards in North Carolina. [ 6 ]
The U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Lawrence v.Texas (2003) held laws criminalizing consensual homosexual activity between adults unconstitutional. [1]In State v.Whiteley (2005), the North Carolina Court of Appeals ruled that the crime against nature statute, N.C. G.S. § 14-177, [2] is not unconstitutional on its face because it may properly be used to criminalize sexual conduct involving minors ...
Often, the sodomy law was drafted to also encompass other forms of sexual conduct such as bestiality, and no attempt has subsequently succeeded in separating them. 9 states' statutes purport to ban all forms of sodomy, some including oral intercourse, regardless of the participants' genders: Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan ...
Noncompete agreements are common in North Carolina. And they can be expansive in scope. Skip to main content. Sign in. Mail. 24/7 Help. For premium support please call: 800-290-4726 ...
The Court of Appeals was created by the North Carolina General Assembly in 1967 after voters approved a constitutional amendment in 1965 which "authorized the creation of an intermediate court of appeals to relieve pressure on the North Carolina Supreme Court." [2] Judges serve eight-year terms and are elected in statewide elections.
ASHEVILLE – The North Carolina Attorney General’s office delivered notice to Dogwood Health Trust Oct. 31 that HCA Healthcare violated the commitments it made as part of the 2019 agreement to ...
Over 100,000 new registrants have sought “same-day registration” in North Carolina during each of the last two presidential general elections, […] The post Judge blocks tighter rule on same ...
North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711 (1969), is a United States Supreme Court case that forbids judicial “vindictiveness” from playing a role in the increased sentence a defendant receives after a new trial. In sum, due process requires that a defendant be “free of apprehension” of judicial vindictiveness. [1]