•  
  •  
 

Authors

LeVonda Wood

Abstract

This note will examine the North Carolina Court of Appeals' decision in Anderson v. Assimos. Part II of the note presents the factual background, the issue raised, and the holding in the Anderson decision. Part III analyzes the decision and discusses why the court's holding is correct. This note concludes that the North Carolina Supreme Court should hold that Rule 9(j) unconstitutionally infringes upon rights guaranteed by both the federal and state constitutions if asked to addresses the issue in the future.

Share

COinS
 

To view the content in your browser, please download Adobe Reader or, alternately,
you may Download the file to your hard drive.

NOTE: The latest versions of Adobe Reader do not support viewing PDF files within Firefox on Mac OS and if you are using a modern (Intel) Mac, there is no official plugin for viewing PDF files within the browser window.