Legal Opinion

State v. Cave

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided November 15, 2005No. COA05-169PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

WYNN, Judge.

If a larceny indictment names a corporation as the owner, “the name of the corporation should be given, and the fact that it is a corporation stated, unless the name itself imports a corporation.” State v. Thornton, 251 N.C. 658, 662, 111 S.E.2d 901, 903 (1960) (citation omitted). In this case, Defendant Stephon Lavarrio Cave argues the indictment issued in his charge of larceny is defective because the named owner-entity, “N.C. FYE, Inc.”, does not import a legal entity capable of owning property. Following Thornton, we hold the larceny indictment was sufficient because the…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. State v. GarciaSupreme Court of North Carolina · 2004
  2. State v. CrawfordSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1996
  3. State v. ThomasSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1978
  4. State v. MorganSupreme Court of North Carolina · 2004
  5. State v. WilliamsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 2002

11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. State v. PattersonCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2009
  2. State v. LillyCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2009
  3. State v. HarrisonCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2012
  4. State v. BrownCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2007
  5. State v. SpeasCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2019

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API