Legal Opinion

Nicholson v. Killens

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided October 4, 1994No. 937SC969PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

EAGLES, Judge.

In its sole assignment of error, respondent argues that the trial court erred in this civil proceeding in ordering a rescission of the DMV order of revocation of petitioner’s license because respondent contends petitioner was properly advised of his rights under G.S. 20-16.2(a). After careful review, we disagree and affirm.

G.S. 20-16.2 provides:(a) Basis for Charging Officer to Require Chemical Analysis; Notification of Rights. — . . . .

Except as provided in this subsection or subsection (b), before any type of chemical analysis is administered the person charged must be taken…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Matter of BanksSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1978
  2. Carter v. Wilson Const. Co., Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1986
  3. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company v. BynumSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1966
  4. Nicholson v. KillensCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1994

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. State v. OliverSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1996
  2. State v. WatsonCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1996
  3. Lee v. GoreCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2010
  4. State v. WilliamsCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2014
  5. Lee v. GoreCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2010

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