Legal Opinion

In re Redwine

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided December 4, 1984No. 137PA84PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MARTIN, Justice.

Appellant Redwine argues that N.C.G.S. 20-139.1(el) is unconstitutional and therefore the superior court erred by issuing a writ of mandamus compelling him to admit the chemical analyst’s affidavit into evidence. We need not reach this issue, however, since we hold, for another reason, that the superior court erred in issuing the writ of mandamus in the present case. As the constitutional issue sought to be reviewed in this appeal is presently before this Court in another case, we find it unnecessary to treat the appeal in this case as a petition for writ of mandamus. See…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. State v. SurlesCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1981

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. State Ex Rel. Edmisten v. TuckerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1984
  2. State v. Diaz-TomasCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2020
  3. State v. Diaz-TomasCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2020

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

Powered by the Exa API