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.
6 North Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1964–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Food & Drug Administration v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.green1 sentence2025The Supreme Court has typically invoked the doctrine in cases “in which the ‘history and the breadth of the authority that [the agency] has asserted,’ and the ‘economic and political significance’ of that assertion, provide a ‘reason to hesitate before concluding that Congress’ meant to confer such authority.” West Virginia v. EPA, 142 S. Ct. 2587 , 2608 (2022) (alteration -21- in original) (quoting FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U.S. 120, 159 (2000)). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Jaynesgreen2 sentences2002See State v. Jaynes, 353 N.C. 534, 549-50 , 549 S.E.2d 179, 191-92 (2001) (not improper for trial court to prohibit defense counsel from asking whether prospective jurors could imagine if there is anything that *613 they could heax that would make them consider a life sentence), cert. denied,-U.S.-, 152 L. 2002See State v. Jaynes, 353 N.C. 534, 549-50 , 549 S.E.2d 179, 191-92 (2001) (not improper for trial court to prohibit defense counsel from asking whether prospective jurors could imagine if there is anything that *613 they could heax that would make them consider a life sentence), cert. denied,-U.S.-, 152 L. | 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 |
|---|---|---|
West Virginia v. EPA
green
1 sentence2025The Supreme Court has typically invoked the doctrine in cases “in which the ‘history and the breadth of the authority that [the agency] has asserted,’ and the ‘economic and political significance’ of that assertion, provide a ‘reason to hesitate before concluding that Congress’ meant to confer such authority.” West Virginia v. EPA, 142 S. Ct. 2587 , 2608 (2022) (alteration -21- in original) (quoting FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U.S. 120, 159 (2000)). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Gainey v. North Carolina
green
1 sentence2007Under the North Carolina Rules of Evidence, "[o]ut-of-court statements that are offered for purposes other than to prove the truth of the matter asserted are not considered hearsay." State v. Gainey, 355 N.C. 73, 87 , 558 S.E.2d 463, 473 , cert. denied, 537 U.S. 896 , 154 L. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Gonzalez Et Vir v. State Bar of California
green
1 sentence2007Under the North Carolina Rules of Evidence, "[o]ut-of-court statements that are offered for purposes other than to prove the truth of the matter asserted are not considered hearsay." State v. Gainey, 355 N.C. 73, 87 , 558 S.E.2d 463, 473 , cert. denied, 537 U.S. 896 , 154 L. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
State v. Gainey
green
2 sentences2007Under the North Carolina Rules of Evidence, "[o]ut-of-court statements that are offered for purposes other than to prove the truth of the matter asserted are not considered hearsay." State v. Gainey, 355 N.C. 73, 87 , 558 S.E.2d 463, 473 , cert. denied, 537 U.S. 896 , 154 L. 2007Under the North Carolina Rules of Evidence, "[o]ut-of-court statements that are offered for purposes other than to prove the truth of the matter asserted are not considered hearsay." State v. Gainey, 355 N.C. 73, 87 , 558 S.E.2d 463, 473 , cert. denied, 537 U.S. 896 , 154 L. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
State v. Shelly
neutral
2 sentences1974State v. Shelly, 280 N.C. 300 , 185 S.E. 2d 702 (1972); State v. Kirby, 276 N.C. 123 , 171 S.E. 2d 416 (1970); State v. Strickland, 10 N.C. 1974State v. Shelly, 280 N.C. 300 , 185 S.E. 2d 702 (1972); State v. Kirby, 276 N.C. 123 , 171 S.E. 2d 416 (1970); State v. Strickland, 10 N.C. | 1 | 1974–1974 |
State v. Kirby
green
2 sentences1974State v. Shelly, 280 N.C. 300 , 185 S.E. 2d 702 (1972); State v. Kirby, 276 N.C. 123 , 171 S.E. 2d 416 (1970); State v. Strickland, 10 N.C. 1974State v. Shelly, 280 N.C. 300 , 185 S.E. 2d 702 (1972); State v. Kirby, 276 N.C. 123 , 171 S.E. 2d 416 (1970); State v. Strickland, 10 N.C. | 1 | 1974–1974 |
State v. Strickland
neutral
1 sentence1974State v. Shelly, 280 N.C. 300 , 185 S.E. 2d 702 (1972); State v. Kirby, 276 N.C. 123 , 171 S.E. 2d 416 (1970); State v. Strickland, 10 N.C. | 1 | 1974–1974 |
Carolina Beach Fishing Pier, Inc. v. Town of Carolina Beach
green
2 sentences1971Fishing Pier v. Town of Carolina Beach, 274 N.C. 362 , 163 S.E. 2d 363 (1968) ; Bridges v. Jackson, 255 N.C. 333 , 121 S.E. 2d 542 (1961). 1971Fishing Pier v. Town of Carolina Beach, 274 N.C. 362 , 163 S.E. 2d 363 (1968) ; Bridges v. Jackson, 255 N.C. 333 , 121 S.E. 2d 542 (1961). | 1 | 1971–1971 |
Bridges Ex Rel. Bridges v. Jackson
green
2 sentences1971Fishing Pier v. Town of Carolina Beach, 274 N.C. 362 , 163 S.E. 2d 363 (1968) ; Bridges v. Jackson, 255 N.C. 333 , 121 S.E. 2d 542 (1961). 1971Fishing Pier v. Town of Carolina Beach, 274 N.C. 362 , 163 S.E. 2d 363 (1968) ; Bridges v. Jackson, 255 N.C. 333 , 121 S.E. 2d 542 (1961). | 1 | 1971–1971 |
EL LOWIE & COMPANY v. Atkins
green
2 sentences1964Plaintiff’s appeal is itself an exception to Judge Olive’s order, and presents for review the questions as to whether error of law appears on the face of the record proper, and as to whether those matters that Judge Olive terms as appearing to him are sufficient to support his order that “the motion of the defendants that service in this action be quashed be and the same is hereby allowed.” Lowie & Co. v. Atkins, 245 N.C. 98 , 95 S.E. 2d 271 ; Balint v. Grayson, 256 N.C. 490 , 124 S.E. 2d 364 ; Horn v. Furniture Co., 245 N.C. 173 , 95 S.E. 2d 521 ; Strong’s N. C. 1964Plaintiff’s appeal is itself an exception to Judge Olive’s order, and presents for review the questions as to whether error of law appears on the face of the record proper, and as to whether those matters that Judge Olive terms as appearing to him are sufficient to support his order that “the motion of the defendants that service in this action be quashed be and the same is hereby allowed.” Lowie & Co. v. Atkins, 245 N.C. 98 , 95 S.E. 2d 271 ; Balint v. Grayson, 256 N.C. 490 , 124 S.E. 2d 364 ; Horn v. Furniture Co., 245 N.C. 173 , 95 S.E. 2d 521 ; Strong’s N. C. | 1 | 1964–1964 |
Horn v. SANDHILL FURNITURE COMPANY
green
2 sentences1964Plaintiff’s appeal is itself an exception to Judge Olive’s order, and presents for review the questions as to whether error of law appears on the face of the record proper, and as to whether those matters that Judge Olive terms as appearing to him are sufficient to support his order that “the motion of the defendants that service in this action be quashed be and the same is hereby allowed.” Lowie & Co. v. Atkins, 245 N.C. 98 , 95 S.E. 2d 271 ; Balint v. Grayson, 256 N.C. 490 , 124 S.E. 2d 364 ; Horn v. Furniture Co., 245 N.C. 173 , 95 S.E. 2d 521 ; Strong’s N. C. 1964Plaintiff’s appeal is itself an exception to Judge Olive’s order, and presents for review the questions as to whether error of law appears on the face of the record proper, and as to whether those matters that Judge Olive terms as appearing to him are sufficient to support his order that “the motion of the defendants that service in this action be quashed be and the same is hereby allowed.” Lowie & Co. v. Atkins, 245 N.C. 98 , 95 S.E. 2d 271 ; Balint v. Grayson, 256 N.C. 490 , 124 S.E. 2d 364 ; Horn v. Furniture Co., 245 N.C. 173 , 95 S.E. 2d 521 ; Strong’s N. C. | 1 | 1964–1964 |
Balint v. Grayson
neutral
2 sentences1964Plaintiff’s appeal is itself an exception to Judge Olive’s order, and presents for review the questions as to whether error of law appears on the face of the record proper, and as to whether those matters that Judge Olive terms as appearing to him are sufficient to support his order that “the motion of the defendants that service in this action be quashed be and the same is hereby allowed.” Lowie & Co. v. Atkins, 245 N.C. 98 , 95 S.E. 2d 271 ; Balint v. Grayson, 256 N.C. 490 , 124 S.E. 2d 364 ; Horn v. Furniture Co., 245 N.C. 173 , 95 S.E. 2d 521 ; Strong’s N. C. 1964Plaintiff’s appeal is itself an exception to Judge Olive’s order, and presents for review the questions as to whether error of law appears on the face of the record proper, and as to whether those matters that Judge Olive terms as appearing to him are sufficient to support his order that “the motion of the defendants that service in this action be quashed be and the same is hereby allowed.” Lowie & Co. v. Atkins, 245 N.C. 98 , 95 S.E. 2d 271 ; Balint v. Grayson, 256 N.C. 490 , 124 S.E. 2d 364 ; Horn v. Furniture Co., 245 N.C. 173 , 95 S.E. 2d 521 ; Strong’s N. C. | 1 | 1964–1964 |
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.