Matter of Sherr v. Everett

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• reasoning that the State’s allegations and supporting evidence were very similar to those rejected in Williams because defendant’s actions only amounted to a violation of N.C.G.S. § 15A-1343(b)(3) and did not rise to the distinct violation of absconding supervision
• reasoning that the State’s allegations and supporting evidence were very similar to those rejected in Williams because defendant’s actions only amounted to a violation of N.C.G.S. § 15A-1343(b)(3) and did not rise to the distinct violation of absconding supervision
• reasoning that the State’s allegations and supporting evidence were very similar to those rejected in Williams because defendant’s actions only amounted to a violation of N.C.G.S. § 15A-1343(b)(3) and did not rise to the distinct violation of absconding supervision

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).