failure to follow rule (North Carolina) · Go Syfert
← North Carolina issues

failure to follow rule in North Carolina

5 North Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1980–2022 2 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.

Followed or applied (0)

CaseFollowedCited
No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in North Carolina.

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in North Carolina. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (4)

CaseCitedYears
In Re Watson green
ncctapp · 2011
2 sentences

2022In re Watson, 209 N.C.

2022In re Watson, 209 N.C.

22022–2022
Bell v. Powell green
ncctapp · 1979
1 sentence

1984Bell v. Powell, Comr. of Motor Vehicles, 41 N.C.

11984–1984
McCartney v. Commission on Judicial Qualifications green
cal · 1974
2 sentences

1981The challenge was based on Rule 904(b) of the California Rules of Court which provided that an accused judge be allowed a “reasonable opportunity in the course of the preliminary investigation to present such matters as he may choose.” In denying the petitioner’s challenge to the procedural irregularity, the court noted that the notice requirement “clearly affords to the judge more procedural protection than is constitutionally required .... [NJotice to the judge under investigation as to the nature of the complaints against him is not compelled as a matter of due process... [and] relief from

1981The challenge was based on Rule 904(b) of the California Rules of Court which provided that an accused judge be allowed a “reasonable opportunity in the course of the preliminary investigation to present such matters as he may choose.” In denying the petitioner’s challenge to the procedural irregularity, the court noted that the notice requirement “clearly affords to the judge more procedural protection than is constitutionally required .... [NJotice to the judge under investigation as to the nature of the complaints against him is not compelled as a matter of due process... [and] relief from

11981–1981
Corprew v. Geigy Chemical Corporation green
nc · 1967
2 sentences

1980Corprew v. Geigy Chemical Corporation, 271 N.C. 485 , 157 S.E. 2d 98 (1967).

1980Corprew v. Geigy Chemical Corporation, 271 N.C. 485 , 157 S.E. 2d 98 (1967).

11980–1980

Where else courts name it

TX 9 (1974–2012) FL 9 (1974–2025) NY 6 (1995–2023) CA 5 (1974–2015) NC 5 (1980–2022) MO 4 (1975–1994) MN 3 (1992–2023) KY 2 (1914–2014) CT 2 (1992–2004) MA 2 (1987–2008) IL 2 (2008–2008) IN 2 (1980–1992) OK 2 (2017–2017)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check