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 2005–2022 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Colegreen2 sentences2022State v. Cole, 199 N.C. App. 151, 156 , 681 S.E.2d 423, 427 (2009). ¶9 “To prevail on a selective prosecution challenge, a defendant must first make a prima facie showing that he has been singled out for prosecution while others similarly situated and committing the same acts have not.” State v. Rogers, 68 N.C. App. 358, 367 , 315 S.E.2d 492, 500 (1984) (quotation marks and citation omitted). “[A]fter doing so, he must demonstrate that the discriminatory selection for prosecution was invidious and done in bad faith in that it rests upon such impermissible considerations as race, religion, or t 2022State v. Cole, 199 N.C. App. 151, 156 , 681 S.E.2d 423, 427 (2009). ¶9 “To prevail on a selective prosecution challenge, a defendant must first make a prima facie showing that he has been singled out for prosecution while others similarly situated and committing the same acts have not.” State v. Rogers, 68 N.C. App. 358, 367 , 315 S.E.2d 492, 500 (1984) (quotation marks and citation omitted). “[A]fter doing so, he must demonstrate that the discriminatory selection for prosecution was invidious and done in bad faith in that it rests upon such impermissible considerations as race, religion, or t | 2 | 2 |
State v. Popegreen2 sentences2022State v. Cole, 199 N.C. App. 151, 156 , 681 S.E.2d 423, 427 (2009). ¶9 “To prevail on a selective prosecution challenge, a defendant must first make a prima facie showing that he has been singled out for prosecution while others similarly situated and committing the same acts have not.” State v. Rogers, 68 N.C. App. 358, 367 , 315 S.E.2d 492, 500 (1984) (quotation marks and citation omitted). “[A]fter doing so, he must demonstrate that the discriminatory selection for prosecution was invidious and done in bad faith in that it rests upon such impermissible considerations as race, religion, or t 2022State v. Cole, 199 N.C. App. 151, 156 , 681 S.E.2d 423, 427 (2009). ¶9 “To prevail on a selective prosecution challenge, a defendant must first make a prima facie showing that he has been singled out for prosecution while others similarly situated and committing the same acts have not.” State v. Rogers, 68 N.C. App. 358, 367 , 315 S.E.2d 492, 500 (1984) (quotation marks and citation omitted). “[A]fter doing so, he must demonstrate that the discriminatory selection for prosecution was invidious and done in bad faith in that it rests upon such impermissible considerations as race, religion, or t | 2 | 2 |
State v. Rogersgreen2 sentences2022State v. Cole, 199 N.C. App. 151, 156 , 681 S.E.2d 423, 427 (2009). ¶9 “To prevail on a selective prosecution challenge, a defendant must first make a prima facie showing that he has been singled out for prosecution while others similarly situated and committing the same acts have not.” State v. Rogers, 68 N.C. App. 358, 367 , 315 S.E.2d 492, 500 (1984) (quotation marks and citation omitted). “[A]fter doing so, he must demonstrate that the discriminatory selection for prosecution was invidious and done in bad faith in that it rests upon such impermissible considerations as race, religion, or t 2022State v. Cole, 199 N.C. App. 151, 156 , 681 S.E.2d 423, 427 (2009). ¶9 “To prevail on a selective prosecution challenge, a defendant must first make a prima facie showing that he has been singled out for prosecution while others similarly situated and committing the same acts have not.” State v. Rogers, 68 N.C. App. 358, 367 , 315 S.E.2d 492, 500 (1984) (quotation marks and citation omitted). “[A]fter doing so, he must demonstrate that the discriminatory selection for prosecution was invidious and done in bad faith in that it rests upon such impermissible considerations as race, religion, or t | 2 | 2 |
State v. Wilsongreen2 sentences2005State v. Garner, 340 N.C. 573, 588 , 459 S.E.2d 718, 725 (1995); State v. Spicer, 299 N.C. 309, 312 , 261 S.E.2d 893, 896 (1980); State v. Wilson, 311 N.C. 117, 123 , 316 S.E.2d 46, 51 (1984). 2005State v. Garner, 340 N.C. 573, 588 , 459 S.E.2d 718, 725 (1995); State v. Spicer, 299 N.C. 309, 312 , 261 S.E.2d 893, 896 (1980); State v. Wilson, 311 N.C. 117, 123 , 316 S.E.2d 46, 51 (1984). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Garnergreen2 sentences2005State v. Garner, 340 N.C. 573, 588 , 459 S.E.2d 718, 725 (1995); State v. Spicer, 299 N.C. 309, 312 , 261 S.E.2d 893, 896 (1980); State v. Wilson, 311 N.C. 117, 123 , 316 S.E.2d 46, 51 (1984). 2005State v. Garner, 340 N.C. 573, 588 , 459 S.E.2d 718, 725 (1995); State v. Spicer, 299 N.C. 309, 312 , 261 S.E.2d 893, 896 (1980); State v. Wilson, 311 N.C. 117, 123 , 316 S.E.2d 46, 51 (1984). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Spicergreen2 sentences2005State v. Garner, 340 N.C. 573, 588 , 459 S.E.2d 718, 725 (1995); State v. Spicer, 299 N.C. 309, 312 , 261 S.E.2d 893, 896 (1980); State v. Wilson, 311 N.C. 117, 123 , 316 S.E.2d 46, 51 (1984). 2005State v. Garner, 340 N.C. 573, 588 , 459 S.E.2d 718, 725 (1995); State v. Spicer, 299 N.C. 309, 312 , 261 S.E.2d 893, 896 (1980); State v. Wilson, 311 N.C. 117, 123 , 316 S.E.2d 46, 51 (1984). | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in North Carolina. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Village of Willowbrook v. Olech
green
2 sentences2009Futernick v. Sumpter, 78 F.3d 1051 (6th Cir. 1996), abrogated in part by Vill. of Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562 , 145 L. 2009Futernick v. Sumpter, 78 F.3d 1051 (6th Cir. 1996), abrogated in part by Vill. of Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562 , 145 L. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Futernick v. Sumpter Township
green
2 sentences2009Futernick v. Sumpter, 78 F.3d 1051 (6th Cir. 1996), abrogated in part by Vill. of Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562 , 145 L. 2009Futernick v. Sumpter, 78 F.3d 1051 (6th Cir.1996), abrogated in part by Vill. of Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562 , 120 S.Ct. 1073 , 145 L.Ed.2d 1060 (2000) (per curiam). | 1 | 2009–2009 |
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.