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 1 courts 1988–2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
Roybal v. Raulligreen2 sentences2026Id. at 352, 832 S.E.2d at 222 (“We affirm the trial court’s order as to Elizabeth, but we remand for the trial court to add Stepmother as a party to this action ‘until the grant 1 For example, in Roybal I, we noted that [d]espite Father’s deployment date of 20 August 2018, the trial court set the hearing for 22 October 2018. 2026Id. at 352, 832 S.E.2d at 222 (“We affirm the trial court’s order as to Elizabeth, but we remand for the trial court to add Stepmother as a party to this action ‘until the grant 1 For example, in Roybal I, we noted that [d]espite Father’s deployment date of 20 August 2018, the trial court set the hearing for 22 October 2018. | 1 | 1 |
State v. McZorngreen2 sentences2002Miranda warnings retain efficacy, so long as "no inordinate time elapses between the interrogations, the subject matter of the questioning remains the same, and there is no evidence that in the interval between the two interrogations anything occurred to dilute the first warning[.]" State v. McZorn, 288 N.C. 417, 433 , 219 S.E.2d 201, 212 (1975), vacated in part, 428 U.S. 904 , 96 S.Ct. 3210 , 49 L.Ed.2d 1210 (1976). 2002Miranda warnings retain efficacy, so long as "no inordinate time elapses between the interrogations, the subject matter of the questioning remains the same, and there is no evidence that in the interval between the two interrogations anything occurred to dilute the first warning[.]" State v. McZorn, 288 N.C. 417, 433 , 219 S.E.2d 201, 212 (1975), vacated in part, 428 U.S. 904 , 96 S.Ct. 3210 , 49 L.Ed.2d 1210 (1976). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Ahearngreen2 sentences1988It is not sufficient that the court made such findings as to the possession conviction. “[I]n every case in which the sentencing judge is required to make findings in aggravation and mitigation to support a sentence which varies from the presumptive term, each offense . . . must be treated separately, and separately supported by findings tailored to the individual offense and applicable only to that offense,” State v. Ahearn, 307 N.C. 584, 598 , 300 S.E. 2d 689, 698 (1983), unless it is clear from the judgment and commitment form for each offense that the court intended the set of factors to a 1988It is not sufficient that the court made such findings as to the possession conviction. “[I]n every case in which the sentencing judge is required to make findings in aggravation and mitigation to support a sentence which varies from the presumptive term, each offense . . . must be treated separately, and separately supported by findings tailored to the individual offense and applicable only to that offense,” State v. Ahearn, 307 N.C. 584, 598 , 300 S.E. 2d 689, 698 (1983), unless it is clear from the judgment and commitment form for each offense that the court intended the set of factors to a | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Diaz v. Division of Social Services
green
1 sentence2007Indeed, ex parte proceedings are specifically defined as those "[d]one or made at the instance and for the benefit of one party only, and without notice to, or argument by, any person adversely interested; of or relating to court action taken by one party without notice to the other, usu[ally] for temporary or emergency relief. " Id. at 616, 628 S.E.2d 1 (emphasis added). | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Chloride, Inc. v. Honeycutt
green
1 sentence2003Chloride, Inc. v. Honeycutt, 71 N.C. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Griffin v. North Carolina
green
1 sentence2002Miranda warnings retain efficacy, so long as “no inordinate time elapses between the interrogations, the subject matter of the questioning remains the same, and there is no evidence that in the interval between the two interrogations anything occurred to dilute the first warning!.]” State v. McZorn, 288 N.C. 417, 433 , 219 S.E.2d 201, 212 (1975), vacated in part, 428 U.S. 904 , 49 L. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
McZorn v. North Carolina
green
2 sentences2002Miranda warnings retain efficacy, so long as "no inordinate time elapses between the interrogations, the subject matter of the questioning remains the same, and there is no evidence that in the interval between the two interrogations anything occurred to dilute the first warning[.]" State v. McZorn, 288 N.C. 417, 433 , 219 S.E.2d 201, 212 (1975), vacated in part, 428 U.S. 904 , 96 S.Ct. 3210 , 49 L.Ed.2d 1210 (1976). 2002Miranda warnings retain efficacy, so long as "no inordinate time elapses between the interrogations, the subject matter of the questioning remains the same, and there is no evidence that in the interval between the two interrogations anything occurred to dilute the first warning[.]" State v. McZorn, 288 N.C. 417, 433 , 219 S.E.2d 201, 212 (1975), vacated in part, 428 U.S. 904 , 96 S.Ct. 3210 , 49 L.Ed.2d 1210 (1976). | 1 | 2002–2002 |
West American Insurance v. Tufco Flooring East, Inc.
neutral
1 sentence1998App. 312 , 409 S.E.2d 692 (1991), disc. review improvidently allowed, 332 N.C. 479 , 420 S.E.2d 826 (1992). | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Dozier v. Crandall
neutral
1 sentence1998App. 312 , 409 S.E.2d 692 (1991), disc. review improvidently allowed, 332 N.C. 479 , 420 S.E.2d 826 (1992). | 1 | 1998–1998 |
West American Insurance Co. v. Tufco Flooring East, Inc
red
2 sentences1998App. 312 , 409 S.E.2d 692 (1991), disc. review improvidently allowed, 332 N.C. 479 , 420 S.E.2d 826 (1992). 1998This court set the standard for determining the date when property damage “occurs,” for insurance purposes, in West American Insurance Co. v. Tufco Flooring East, 104 N.C. | 1 | 1998–1998 |
State v. Fletcher
green
2 sentences1988State v. Fletcher, 322 N.C. 415 , 368 S.E. 2d 633 (1988). 1988State v. Fletcher, 322 N.C. 415 , 368 S.E. 2d 633 (1988). | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.