green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 2×
17.6 score
G Cite
Treatment trajectory · 1991 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1991
2008
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 19 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
In re R.D.H.
(2×)
he trial court need not make a finding as to every fact which arises from the evidence; rather, the court need only find those facts which are material to the resolution of the dispute.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
State v. Greene
if a jeweler removes several diamonds and places them on the counter for the inspection of a customer, under the jeweler's eye, 820 the diamonds are under the protection of the person.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
STREET v. SANTIAGO
(2×)
North Carolina courts recognize that property may be “under the protection” of the victim even when “not actually ‘attached’ to him.” State v. Buckom, 328 N.C. 313 , 317–18, 401 S.E.2d 362, 365 (1991) (citation omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Sheppard
Stat. § 14-72 (b) (2011). “[F]or larceny to be ‘from the person,’ the property stolen must be in the immediate presence of and under the protection or control of the victim at the time the property is taken.” State v. Barnes, 345 N.C. 146, 149 , 478 S.E.2d 188, 190 (1996) (emphasis omitted) (citing State v. Buckom, 328 N.C. 313, 317-18 , 401 S.E.2d 362, 365 (1991)). “ ‘[I]t is not necessary that the stolen property be attached to the victim’s person in order for the theft to constitute larceny from the person ....’” State v. Wilson, 328 N.C. 313, 691 , 573 S.E.2d 193, 196 (2…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Carmichael
In United States v. Jarmon, 596 F.3d 228, 230-33 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 145 , 178 L.Ed.2d 87 (2010), we held that a North *771 Carolina conviction for larceny from the person was a “crime of violence” under the federal sentencing guidelines. 1 “ ‘[L]areeny from the person differs from [common law] robbery in that larceny from the person lacks the requirement that the victim be put in fear.’ ” State v. Carter, 186 N.C.App. 259 , 650 S.E.2d 650, 653-54 (2007) (quoting State v. Buckom, 328 N.C. 313 , 401 S.E.2d 362, 365 (1991)). “[Larceny from the person ent…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Carter
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
As our Supreme Court has stated, “larceny from the person differs from robbery in that larceny from the person lacks the requirement that the victim be put in fear.” State v. Buckom, 328 N.C. 313, 317 , 401 S.E.2d 362, 365 (1991).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Key
App. 250, 255 , 623 S.E.2d 600, 604 (2006). “[W]hen a statute punishes a crime known at common law without defining its elements, the common law definition controls.” State v. Buckom, 328 N.C. 313, 316 , 401 S.E.2d 362, 364 (1991).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Hudgins v. Commonwealth
(2×)
Garland v. Commonwealth, 18 Va.App. 706, 710 , 446 S.E.2d 628, 630 (1994) (quoting State v. Buckom, 328 N.C. 313 , 401 S.E.2d 362, 364-65 (1991) (citations omitted)); see 4 Blackstone, supra, *241.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Pickard
Buckom, 328 N.C. at 317 , 401 S.E.2d at 365 (1991).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. White
State v. Buckom, 328 N.C. 313, 317 , 401 S.E.2d 362, 365 (1991).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
McCrimmon v. Crime Victims Compensation Commission
Assuming arguendo the Commission attached an erroneous label to petitioner’s actions, the misstatement is de minimis, see State v. Buckom, 328 N.C. 313, 317 , 401 S.E.2d 362, 365 (1991) (citation omitted) (larceny from the person differs from robbery only in that the former “lacks the requirement that the victim be put in fear”), and surplusage.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Graves v. Commonwealth
(2×)
Garland v. Commonwealth, 18 Va.App. 706, 710 , 446 S.E.2d 628, 630 (1994) (quoting State v. Buckom, 328 N.C. 313 , 401 S.E.2d 362, 364-65 (1991) (citation omitted)).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Garland v. Commonwealth
(4×)
Taken in the context of the foregoing common law principles, “[property is stolen ‘from the person,’ if it was under the protection of the person at the time .... [Property may be under the protection of the person although not actually ‘attached’ to him.” Id. at 316-18 , 401 S.E.2d at 364-65 (citations omitted).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. McCullough
See State v. Buckom, 328 N.C. 313, 318 , 401 S.E.2d 362, 365 (1991) (the defendant committed larceny from the person when he took money from cash register when the cashier was standing in front of register making change); Wilson, 154 N.C.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Gwynn
See Hope, 317 N.C. at 306 , 345 S.E.2d at 364 ; see also State v. Buckom, 328 N.C. 313, 318 , 401 S.E.2d 362, 365 (1991) (“[I]f a jeweler places diamonds on a counter for inspection by a customer, under the jeweler’s eye, the diamonds remain under the protection of the jeweler.” (citation omitted)).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Wilson
Stat. § 14-72 (b)(l) (2001); see also State v. Buckom, 328 N.C. 313, 317 , 401 S.E.2d 362, 364 (1991).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Brennan
(2×)
If a violent confrontation or assault had actually occurred, then an even more serious crime would have been committed, meriting an even greater penalty. 13 V.S.A § 608 (assault and robbery); see also State v. Buckom, 401 S.E.2d 362, 365 (N.C. 1991) (noting that larceny from the person differs from robbery because it ‘lacks the requirement that the victim be put in fear” and occupies a “middle ground” between robbery and traditional or petty larceny).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Vance
(2×)
N.C.G.S. § 4-1 (1986); see, e.g., State v. Buckom, 328 N.C. 313 , 401 S.E.2d 362 (1991); Martin v. Thornburg, 320 N.C. 533 , 359 S.E.2d 472 (1987); McMichael v. Proctor, 243 N.C. 479 , 91 S.E.2d 231 (1956); State v. Hampton, 210 N.C. 283 , 186 S.E. 251 (1936).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Candace Clark WITHEROW
v.
Charles William WITHEROW, Jr.
v.
Charles William WITHEROW, Jr.
324A90.
Supreme Court of North Carolina.
Mar 7, 1991.
Clyde C. Randolph, Jr., Winston-Salem, for plaintiff.
Morrow, Alexander, Tash, Long & Black by John F. Morrow and Ronald B. Black, Winston-Salem, for defendant.
PER CURIAM.
AFFIRMED.