condition violation in North Carolina

1975A condition which is a violation of the defendant’s constitutional right and, therefore, beyond the *180 power of the court to impose is per se unreasonable, State v. Caudle, 276 N.C. 550 , 173 S.E. 2d 778 (1970).

1975A condition which is a violation of the defendant’s constitutional right and, therefore, beyond the *180 power of the court to impose is per se unreasonable, State v. Caudle, 276 N.C. 550 , 173 S.E. 2d 778 (1970).

2020We are further persuaded by the holding of our Court in Hunter v. Perquimans County Board of Education that the failure to provide notice when required by Section 97-18(h) has no impact on the operation of the limitations period for termination of indemnity compensation under Section 97-47. 139 N.C.

2020Had the General Assembly intended that providing notice under Section 97-18(h) was a condition to bar future claims under Section 97-25.1, that body would have said so: “the legislature would [not] leave [this] important matter . . . open to inference or speculation[.]” Deese, 306 N.C. at 278 , 293 S.E.2d at 143 .

2020Had the General Assembly intended that providing notice under Section 97-18(h) was a condition to bar future claims under Section 97-25.1, that body would have said so: “the legislature would [not] leave [this] important matter . . . open to inference or speculation[.]” Deese, 306 N.C. at 278 , 293 S.E.2d at 143 .

2010Id. at 509 , 380 S.E.2d at 601 .

2010Id. at 509 , 380 S.E.2d at 601 .

1973In State v. Langley, 3 N.C.

1973In State v. Davis, 243 N.C. 754 , 92 S.E. 2d 177 (1956), the Supreme Court held that where the trial court fails to find wherein the defendant had violated the conditions of suspension, defendant is entitled to have the cause remanded for a specific finding in regard thereto, since only by such finding may the defendant test the validity of the condition for violation of which the suspended sentence was activiated.

1973In State v. Davis, 243 N.C. 754 , 92 S.E. 2d 177 (1956), the Supreme Court held that where the trial court fails to find wherein the defendant had violated the conditions of suspension, defendant is entitled to have the cause remanded for a specific finding in regard thereto, since only by such finding may the defendant test the validity of the condition for violation of which the suspended sentence was activiated.

1972Cal. 409, 455 P. 2d 143 , 78 Cal. Rptr. 207 .

1972Cal. 409, 455 P. 2d 143 , 78 Cal. Rptr. 207 .

1970See: State v. Rhinehart, 267 N.C. 470 , 14& S.E. 2d 651; State v. Doughtie, 237 N.C. 368 , 74 S.E. 2d 922 ; Myers v. Barnhardt, 202 N.C. 49 , 161 S.E. 715 ; State v. Whitt, 117 N.C.. 804, 23 S.E. 452 .

1970See: State v. Rhinehart, 267 N.C. 470 , 14& S.E. 2d 651; State v. Doughtie, 237 N.C. 368 , 74 S.E. 2d 922 ; Myers v. Barnhardt, 202 N.C. 49 , 161 S.E. 715 ; State v. Whitt, 117 N.C.. 804, 23 S.E. 452 .

1970See: State v. Rhinehart, 267 N.C. 470 , 14& S.E. 2d 651; State v. Doughtie, 237 N.C. 368 , 74 S.E. 2d 922 ; Myers v. Barnhardt, 202 N.C. 49 , 161 S.E. 715 ; State v. Whitt, 117 N.C.. 804, 23 S.E. 452 .

1970See: State v. Rhinehart, 267 N.C. 470 , 14& S.E. 2d 651; State v. Doughtie, 237 N.C. 368 , 74 S.E. 2d 922 ; Myers v. Barnhardt, 202 N.C. 49 , 161 S.E. 715 ; State v. Whitt, 117 N.C.. 804, 23 S.E. 452 .

1970See: State v. Rhinehart, 267 N.C. 470 , 14& S.E. 2d 651; State v. Doughtie, 237 N.C. 368 , 74 S.E. 2d 922 ; Myers v. Barnhardt, 202 N.C. 49 , 161 S.E. 715 ; State v. Whitt, 117 N.C.. 804, 23 S.E. 452 .

1970See: State v. Rhinehart, 267 N.C. 470 , 14& S.E. 2d 651; State v. Doughtie, 237 N.C. 368 , 74 S.E. 2d 922 ; Myers v. Barnhardt, 202 N.C. 49 , 161 S.E. 715 ; State v. Whitt, 117 N.C.. 804, 23 S.E. 452 .

1908Co. , 162 Mass. 479 , discussing an alleged waiver of a condition in a standard policy adopted by the General Assembly, it is said: "There is nothing to show that the agents had any authority to vary the standard form; but if they had it would seem probable that they could only do so by inserting provisions or attaching slips in the manner prescribed by the statute." In Anderson v. Ins.

1908If so, then this part of the law is at once emasculated.” In Parker v. Rochester German Insurance Co., 162 Mass., 479 , discussing an alleged waiver of a condition in a standard policy adopted by the General Assembly, it is said: “There is nothing to show that the agents had any authority to vary the standard form; but if they had it would seem probable that they could only do so by inserting provisions or attaching slips in the manner prescribed by the statute.” 'In Anderson v. Insurance Co., 28 L.