N.C. Gen. Stat. » Chapter 13
NC General Statutes

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 13-4 (2026)

Endorsement of warrant, service and filing of conditional pardon

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NCLEGncleg.gov (official) JustiaChapter 13 CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

When the offender has satisfied all of the conditions of a conditional pardon, and his rights of citizenship have been restored under the provisions of G.S. 13-1(3), the Governor shall issue an endorsement to the original warrant which specified the conditions of the pardon. Such endorsement shall acknowledge that the offender has satisfied all of the conditions of the pardon.

The Governor shall then deliver the endorsement to the officer specified in G.S. 147-25 for service and delivery to the clerk. Service and delivery to the clerk and filing by the clerk shall be done in accordance with the provisions of G.S. 13-3 so that the endorsement reflecting satisfaction of all conditions of the pardon will be served and recorded as if it were a warrant of unconditional pardon. (1973, c. 251.)

 

§§ 13-5 through 13-10.  Repealed by Session Laws 1971, c. 902.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 1987–2020 · leading case: Lamar Outdoor Advert., Inc. v. City of Hendersonville Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, 573 S.E.2d 637 (N.C. Ct. App. 2002).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Lamar Outdoor Advert., Inc. v. City of Hendersonville Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, 573 S.E.2d 637 (N.C. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 11× “Lamar did not carry its burden, pursuant to Hendersonville Zoning Ordinance]] § 13-4-(b)(7) of showing that it could “repair” its billboard for less than or equal to 60% of the replacement cost of the sign.”
Blanton v. Moses H. Cone Mem'l Hosp., Inc., 354 S.E.2d 455 (N.C. 1987). “Even if a hospital is not liable for the negligence of a doctor because the doctor is not an agent of the hospital it still may be liable if, through a person who is an agent of the hospital it has breached a duty it owes to a patient.”
In Re the Foreclosure of Land Covered by a Certain Deed of Trust Given by Aal-Anubiaimhotepokorohamz, 472 S.E.2d 369 (N.C. Ct. App. 1996). “The defendants bargained for and contracted for the rights to the photo processing equipment, but authorization for the assignment was never obtained, nor do the defendants presently have possession of the equipment.”
Starlites Tech Corp. v. Rockingham Cty. (N.C. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 4× “Starlites maintains that section 13-4(f) of the amended Ordinance essentially constitutes a “grandfather clause,” allowing a prior permissible nonconforming use to continue so long as such use was not discontinued for a period of one year.”
Starlites Tech Corp. v. Rockingham Cty. (N.C. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 4× “Starlites maintains that section 13-4(f) of the amended Ordinance essentially constitutes a “grandfather clause,” allowing a prior permissible nonconforming use to continue so long as such use was not discontinued for a period of one year.”
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 13-4(b): 1 case
Lamar Outdoor Advert., Inc. v. City of Hendersonville Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, 573 S.E.2d 637 (N.C. Ct. App. 2002). “Lamar did not carry its burden, pursuant to Hendersonville Zoning Ordinance]] § 13-4-(b)(7) of showing that it could “repair” its billboard for less than or equal to 60% of the replacement cost of the sign.”
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 13-4(b)(7): 1 case
Lamar Outdoor Advert., Inc. v. City of Hendersonville Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, 573 S.E.2d 637 (N.C. Ct. App. 2002). “Lamar did not carry its burden, pursuant to Hendersonville Zoning Ordinance]] § 13-4-(b)(7) of showing that it could “repair” its billboard for less than or equal to 60% of the replacement cost of the sign.”
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 13-4(f): 2 cases
Starlites Tech Corp. v. Rockingham Cty. (N.C. Ct. App. 2020). “Starlites maintains that section 13-4(f) of the amended Ordinance essentially constitutes a “grandfather clause,” allowing a prior permissible nonconforming use to continue so long as such use was not discontinued for a period of one year.”
Starlites Tech Corp. v. Rockingham Cty. (N.C. Ct. App. 2020). “Starlites maintains that section 13-4(f) of the amended Ordinance essentially constitutes a “grandfather clause,” allowing a prior permissible nonconforming use to continue so long as such use was not discontinued for a period of one year.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.