Legal Opinion
State v. Taylor
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Decided June 16, 1949PublishedCited by 16 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Stacy, O. J.
Tbe question posed is tbe sufficiency of tbe application and showing for permission to apply for writs of error coram nobis. Tbe record suggests a limited allowance.
Tbe writ of error coram nobis is an established common-law writ. 24 C.J.S. 143 et seq. It is therefore available under our procedure in a case like tbe present. G.S. 4-1; In re Taylor, 229 N.C. 297, 49 S.E. 2d 749; Roughton v. Brown, 53 N.C. 393; Williams v. Edwards, 34 N.C. 118; Lassiter v. Harper, 32 N.C. 392; Tyler v. Morris, 20 N.C. 625. See Massie v. Hainey, 165 N.C. 174, 81 S.E. 135; Roberts v. Pratt, 152 N.C.…
2Cases cited22 opinions
- Powell v. AlabamaSupreme Court of the United States · 1932
- Uveges v. PennsylvaniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1948
- Hysler v. FloridaSupreme Court of the United States · 1942
- Gibbs v. BurkeSupreme Court of the United States · 1949
- Young v. RagenSupreme Court of the United States · 1949
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- Brown v. AllenSupreme Court of the United States · 1953
- Hogan v. Cone Mills Corp.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1985
- State v. PearceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1966
- State v. GreenSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1970
- State v. DanielsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1949
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.