Lewis v. City of Washington, 310 S.E.2d 610 (N.C. 1983). · Go Syfert
Search
Lewis v. City of Washington, 310 S.E.2d 610 (N.C. 1983). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“in advancing a collateral estoppel double jeopardy defense, the defendant has the burden of persuasion.”
26 citation events (13 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: State v. Bell (ncctapp, 2004-05-04)
Treatment trajectory · 1989 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1989 2007 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) State v. Bell
N.C. Ct. App. · 2004 · signal: see also · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
in advancing a collateral estoppel double jeopardy defense, the defendant has the burden of persuasion.
examined Cited as authority (rule) State v. Agee (5×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
N.C. Ct. App. · 1989 · confidence medium
The State was not precluded from introducing evidence, albeit the ‘same evidence’ tending to implicate defendant [in the commission of the first crime] where the sole [and different] purpose of the evidence was to prove ... an issue which was neither raised nor resolved by his acquittal . . . 310 N.C. at 144-46 , 310 S.E. 2d at 613-14 (emphasis added) (quoting Triano v. Superior Court of New Jersey, 393 F. Supp. 1061 , 1070 n.8 (D.N.J. 1975), aff'd per curiam, 523 F. 2d 1052 (3d Cir. 1975)).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." State v. Jones
N.C. Ct. App. · 2017 · signal: see also · confidence medium
See also, e.g., Edwards , 310 N.C. at 145 , 310 S.E.2d at 612-13 (addressing defendant's argument that "his acquittal on the larceny charge in the first trial determined matters of fact in his favor so as to collaterally estop the State from now proving him guilty of breaking or entering with the intent to commit larceny.").
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
FRANK B. LEWIS
v.
THE CITY OF WASHINGTON, Et Al.
446P83.
Supreme Court of North Carolina.
Dec 6, 1983.
310 S.E.2d 610
1983 N.C. LEXIS 1601
Frye.
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Published

ORDER

THIS matter is before the Court upon plaintiffs petition for writ of certiorari to review the decision of the Court of Appeals filed on 16 August 1983. The petition is allowed for the limited purpose of entering the following order:

The decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed in all respects except that part of its decision which considered and reversed the trial court’s denial of defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the issue of plaintiffs entitlement to recover the rental in the sum of $500. As to that portion, the decision of the Court of Appeals is REVERSED and the judgment of the trial court is REINSTATED.

By order of the Court in Conference, this 6th day of December, 1983.

Frye, J.

For the Court