Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 North Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1915–2025 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by North Carolina courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Ginyardgreen1 sentence2025“The question of whether a prior statement is an inconsistent statement is a matter to be determined by the trial court after hearing evidence either party may offer, outside the presence of the jury.” State v. Ginyard, 122 N.C. App. 25, 34 (1996); see also State v. Morrison, 84 N.C. App. 41, 46 (1987) (concluding the trial court properly excluded a prior, allegedly inconsistent statement where the defendant “failed to show that the testimony of the . . . witness[] was inconsistent”). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Morrisongreen1 sentence2025“The question of whether a prior statement is an inconsistent statement is a matter to be determined by the trial court after hearing evidence either party may offer, outside the presence of the jury.” State v. Ginyard, 122 N.C. App. 25, 34 (1996); see also State v. Morrison, 84 N.C. App. 41, 46 (1987) (concluding the trial court properly excluded a prior, allegedly inconsistent statement where the defendant “failed to show that the testimony of the . . . witness[] was inconsistent”). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Huntgreen2 sentences1996See State v. Hunt, 324 N.C. 343, 345, 348 , 378 S.E.2d 754, 755, 757 (1989) (trial court conducted voir dire to determine if prior statements were inconsistent). 1996See State v. Hunt, 324 N.C. 343, 345, 348 , 378 S.E.2d 754, 755, 757 (1989) (trial court conducted voir dire to determine if prior statements were inconsistent). | 1 | 1 |
Board of Trustees of the Fairmont Graded School District v. Mutual Loan & Trust Co.green1 sentence1975This Court affirmed, saying: “The refusal to submit an issue as to the intention of the deceased was not erroneous, as this intent must be gathered from the letter and the surrounding circumstances, and a finding of the jury contrary to the language used in the letter could not be sustained.” 181 N.C. at 306, 106 S.E. at 842 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in North Carolina. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Hutchinson v. Fidelity Inv. Ass'n
green
1 sentence2008In construing Rule 23(c) of the Federal Rules of Procedure, the Fourth Circuit reasoned the notice requirement “was never intended . . . [to] be a condition precedent to dismissal by the court after hearing on the merits.” Id. at 436 . | 1 | 2008–2008 |
In Re Will of Johnson
green
1 sentence1975This Court affirmed, saying: “The refusal to submit an issue as to the intention of the deceased was not erroneous, as this intent must be gathered from the letter and the surrounding circumstances, and a finding of the jury contrary to the language used in the letter could not be sustained.” 181 N.C. at 306, 106 S.E. at 842 . | 1 | 1975–1975 |
Lea v. . Lea
green
1 sentence1915In Lea v. Lea, 104 N. C., 603 , it is held that an action to have a marriage declared void because of preexisting disqualifications to enter into marriage relations is an action for divorce. | 1 | 1915–1915 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.