Legal Opinion

State v. . Anderson

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided March 27, 1929PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBeogdeN, J.

G. S., 4384, under which the indictment was drawn, specifies two offenses :

1. That if any official named therein “shall wilfully omit, neglect or refuse to discharge any of the duties of his office ... he shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.”

2. If it shall be proved that such officer “wilfully and corruptly omitted, neglected or refused to discharge any of the duties of his office, etc., . . . such officer shall be guilty of misbehavior in office, and shall be punished by removal therefrom, etc.”

The statute has been construed by this Court in several decisions. In indictments for neglect of duty…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. State Ex Rel. Battle v. City of Rocky MountSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1911
  2. State v. . HatchSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1895
  3. State v. . LeeperSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1908
  4. State v. . BerrySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1915
  5. State v. . BradySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1919

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. State v. . MorganSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1946
  2. State v. . ShipmanSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1932
  3. State v. BirdsongSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1989
  4. State v. DavisCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1980
  5. State v. HockadaySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1965

4 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