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 1931–2022 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Ivey v. Rosegreen2 sentences1992App. 525, 531 , 315 S.E.2d 711, 714 , disc. rev. denied, 311 N.C. 756 , 321 S.E.2d 134 (1984), this Court ruled that the doctrine of punitive damages against impaired drivers applies “in certain situations without regard to the drivers’ motives or intent.” Accord Ivey v. Rose, 94 N.C. 1992App. 773, 776 , 381 S.E.2d 476, 478 (1989) (“act of driving while impaired is a wanton act”). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Dixon
green
2 sentences2022In Dixon, the Court ruled that the test “is wholly inconsistent with earlier Supreme Court precedent and with the clear common-law understanding of double jeopardy.” Id. 2022In Dixon, the Court ruled that the test “is wholly inconsistent with earlier Supreme Court precedent and with the clear common-law understanding of double jeopardy.” Id. | 2 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Van Landingham
green
1 sentence2012Id. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Huff v. Chrismon
green
1 sentence1992App. 525, 531 , 315 S.E.2d 711, 714 , disc. rev. denied, 311 N.C. 756 , 321 S.E.2d 134 (1984), this Court ruled that the doctrine of punitive damages against impaired drivers applies “in certain situations without regard to the drivers’ motives or intent.” Accord Ivey v. Rose, 94 N.C. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Clark v. Jones
neutral
1 sentence1992App. 525, 531 , 315 S.E.2d 711, 714 , disc. rev. denied, 311 N.C. 756 , 321 S.E.2d 134 (1984), this Court ruled that the doctrine of punitive damages against impaired drivers applies “in certain situations without regard to the drivers’ motives or intent.” Accord Ivey v. Rose, 94 N.C. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Holbrook v. American National Insurance
neutral
2 sentences1931Co., 196 N. C., 333 , 145 S. E., 609 , did not apply *787 to such reasonable limitations contained in the policy itself. 1931Co., 196 N. C., 333 , 145 S. E., 609 , did not apply *787 to such reasonable limitations contained in the policy itself. | 1 | 1931–1931 |
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.