Legal Opinion

State v. . Everhardt

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided November 30, 1932PublishedCited by 33 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtClarkson, J.

In apt time and before pleading to the bill of indictment and before the jury was empaneled, the defendant made a motion (1) to quash the bill of indictment; (2) plea in abatement and to jurisdiction. S. v. Oliver, 186 N. C., 329; S. v. Mitchem, 188 N. C., 608; S. v. Ritter, 199 N. C., 116; S. v. Ellis, 200 N. C., 77.

One of the material contentions of the defendant is that the bill of indictment is defective “for the reason that the law requires the bill of indictment to set out in detail the profanity charged to have been used, the words, the acts, the conduct and the matters and things…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. State v. Jarrell.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1906
  2. State v. . KnottsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1914
  3. McDonald v. PeopleIllinois Supreme Court · 1888
  4. State v. . HaneySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1837
  5. State v. . ColeSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1932

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

3Cited by33 opinions

  1. Roc Sansotta v. Town of Nags HeadCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2013
  2. State v. . McKinnonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1943
  3. State v. GreeneSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1976
  4. State v. McKinnonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1943
  5. State v. KnightSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1964

28 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