Legal Opinion

State v. Loesch

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided April 29, 1953No. 505PublishedCited by 18 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtDeNNy, J.

The bill of indictment follows the language of the statute and is sufficient in form to charge a violation of the provisions of G.S. 90-18. In fact, its sufficiency is not challenged except upon the ground that it fails to disclose that the Board of Medical Examiners of the State of North Carolina complained to the Attorney-General about the conduct of the defendant; that the Attorney-General conducted an investigation and directed the Solicitor to institute an action against the defendant.

The defendant contends that a strict compliance with the procedure outlined in G.S. 90-21, is a…

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. State v. . BealSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1930
  2. State v. . DavenportSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1947
  3. State v. BealSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1930
  4. State v. . JacksonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1940
  5. State v. . GregorySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1943

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

3Cited by18 opinions

  1. State v. GreerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1953
  2. State v. HammondsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1954
  3. State v. JonesSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1955
  4. State v. CamachoSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1991
  5. State v. TateSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1980

13 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