State v. Washington, 410 S.E.2d 55 (N.C. 1991). · Go Syfert
Search
State v. Washington, 410 S.E.2d 55 (N.C. 1991). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 5× by 1 distinct case · “under [the UCC] a contract for the sale of goods may be made in any manner sufficient to show agreement, including conduct that indicates the existence of such a contract”
36 citation events (29 in the last 25 years) across 5 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Neugent v. Beroth Oil Co. (ncctapp, 2002-03-05)
Treatment trajectory · 1991 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1991 2008 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) Neugent v. Beroth Oil Co.
N.C. Ct. App. · 2002 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
under a contract for the sale of goods may be made in any manner sufficient to show agreement, including conduct that indicates the existence of such a contract
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Crudup
N.C. Ct. App. · 2003 · confidence medium
However, the car belonged to someone else.” Accordingly, the Court held that “in light of the less than overwhelming circumstantial evidence, [we conclude admission of defendant’s statement] was not harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Washington, 330 N.C. 188, 188 , 410 S.E.2d 55, 56 (1991) (adopting 102 N.C.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Big Red, LLC v. Davines S.P.A. (2×)
4th Cir. · 2002 · confidence medium
Id. at 101 (Wells, J. concurring). 12 BIG RED v. DAVINES S.P.A. sufficient to establish the egregious or aggravating circumstances nec- essary to maintain a claim for unfair or deceptive acts or practices under North Carolina precedent.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." State v. Phelps (2×)
N.C. Ct. App. · 2003 · signal: see also · confidence low
See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 479 , 86 S.Ct. 1602, 1630 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694, 726 (1966)(holding a defendant's statements elicited during a custodial interrogation are not admissible unless the State demonstrates that Miranda warnings were given prior to the statement being made). "`[I]nterrogation' under Miranda refers not only to express questioning, but also to any words or actions on the part of the police (other than those normally attendant to arrest and custody) that the police should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from the suspect." Rhode Island v. I…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
STATE of North Carolina
v.
Michael Leon WASHINGTON.
244A91.
Supreme Court of North Carolina.
Nov 7, 1991.
410 S.E.2d 55
Per Curiam.
Cited by 5 opinions  |  Published
1 passage pin-cited by 1 case
Pinpoint authority: bottom 62%
Citer courts: Court of Appeals of North Caro… (1)

[*56] Lacy H. Thornburg, Atty. Gen. by Teresa L. White, Asst. Atty. Gen., Raleigh, for the State.

Isabel Scott Day, Public Defender by Allen W. Boyer, Asst. Public Defender, Charlotte, for defendant-appellant.

PER CURIAM.

Defendant was convicted of felonious possession of cocaine with intent to sell, in violation of N.C.G.S. § 90-95, and sentenced to a prison term of three years. A majority of the Court of Appeals panel concluded the trial court did not err in admitting certain statements made by defendant to law enforcement officers shortly before his arrest. Judge Greene, dissenting, concluded that these statements should have been excluded because they were taken in violation of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). Judge Greene further concluded that because of the erroneous admission of these statements, defendant was entitled to a new trial.

For the reasons stated in Judge Greene's dissenting opinion, the decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed; defendant's conviction is vacated; and the case is remanded to the Court of Appeals for further remand to the Superior Court, Mecklenburg County, for a new trial or for such other further proceedings as are not inconsistent with this decision.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.