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 1984–2022 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 |
|---|---|---|
Marvin Fullerton v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2022In so doing, the majority acts like a jury, not an appellate court, in substituting its own belief in Gaddis’s guilt for a rigorous application of the requisite harmless error standard. 1 See, e.g., United States v. Fullerton, 187 F.3d 587, 592 (6th Cir. 1999) (concluding that a prosecutor’s “statement that the defense counsel was ‘trying to blow smoke in the jury’s faces’ ” was “improper” because it “indicat[ed] a personal belief in the witness’s credibility”); State v. Maye, No. COA15-676, 2016 WL 1013179, at *3 (N.C. Ct. App. Mar. 15, 2016) (unpublished) (concluding that a prosecutor’s stat 2022In so doing, the majority acts like a jury, not an appellate court, in substituting its own belief in Gaddis’s guilt for a rigorous application of the requisite harmless error standard. 1 See, e.g., United States v. Fullerton, 187 F.3d 587, 592 (6th Cir. 1999) (concluding that a prosecutor’s “statement that the defense counsel was ‘trying to blow smoke in the jury’s faces’ ” was “improper” because it “indicat[ed] a personal belief in the witness’s credibility”); State v. Maye, No. COA15-676, 2016 WL 1013179, at *3 (N.C. Ct. App. Mar. 15, 2016) (unpublished) (concluding that a prosecutor’s stat | 2 | 2 |
State v. Mayegreen2 sentences2022In so doing, the majority acts like a jury, not an appellate court, in substituting its own belief in Gaddis’s guilt for a rigorous application of the requisite harmless error standard. 1 See, e.g., United States v. Fullerton, 187 F.3d 587, 592 (6th Cir. 1999) (concluding that a prosecutor’s “statement that the defense counsel was ‘trying to blow smoke in the jury’s faces’ ” was “improper” because it “indicat[ed] a personal belief in the witness’s credibility”); State v. Maye, No. COA15-676, 2016 WL 1013179, at *3 (N.C. Ct. App. Mar. 15, 2016) (unpublished) (concluding that a prosecutor’s stat 2022In so doing, the majority acts like a jury, not an appellate court, in substituting its own belief in Gaddis’s guilt for a rigorous application of the requisite harmless error standard. 1 See, e.g., United States v. Fullerton, 187 F.3d 587, 592 (6th Cir. 1999) (concluding that a prosecutor’s “statement that the defense counsel was ‘trying to blow smoke in the jury’s faces’ ” was “improper” because it “indicat[ed] a personal belief in the witness’s credibility”); State v. Maye, No. COA15-676, 2016 WL 1013179, at *3 (N.C. Ct. App. Mar. 15, 2016) (unpublished) (concluding that a prosecutor’s stat | 2 | 2 |
State v. Hillgreen2 sentences1998See State v. Hill, 347 N.C. 275, 300 , 493 S.E.2d 264 , 278 *605 (1997) (assuming error arguendo in statement that mitigators “were developed skillfully by the defense experts who go around this State testifying for defendants in capital cases, selling their services and opinions at rates from $75 to $125 an hour,” but finding no entitlement to new sentencing proceeding), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 140 L. 1998See State v. Hill, 347 N.C. 275, 300 , 493 S.E.2d 264 , 278 *605 (1997) (assuming error arguendo in statement that mitigators “were developed skillfully by the defense experts who go around this State testifying for defendants in capital cases, selling their services and opinions at rates from $75 to $125 an hour,” but finding no entitlement to new sentencing proceeding), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 140 L. | 1 | 1 |
Lateef v. Virginia Parole Boardgreen1 sentence1998See State v. Hill, 347 N.C. 275, 300 , 493 S.E.2d 264 , 278 *605 (1997) (assuming error arguendo in statement that mitigators “were developed skillfully by the defense experts who go around this State testifying for defendants in capital cases, selling their services and opinions at rates from $75 to $125 an hour,” but finding no entitlement to new sentencing proceeding), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 140 L. | 1 | 1 |
Dibbrell v. Georgia Home Insurancegreen2 sentences1984One of the better statements of this principle is in Dibbrell v. Georgia Home Insurance Co., 110 N.C. 193, 209 , 14 S.E. 783, 788 (1892), where it was said: The usual stipulation in a policy that no agent of the company is authorized to change its terms and conditions, and that they shall not be waived except in writing endorsed on the policy, does not apply to conditions to be performed after the loss is incurred. . . . 1984One of the better statements of this principle is in Dibbrell v. Georgia Home Insurance Co., 110 N.C. 193, 209 , 14 S.E. 783, 788 (1892), where it was said: The usual stipulation in a policy that no agent of the company is authorized to change its terms and conditions, and that they shall not be waived except in writing endorsed on the policy, does not apply to conditions to be performed after the loss is incurred. . . . | 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Rogers
green
2 sentences2018In State v. Rogers , 323 N.C. 658 , 662-63, 374 S.E.2d 852 , 855-56 (1989), our Supreme Court held there was no error in the prosecutor's argument that the community deserved to be safe, drug-free, and that young people should be warned about drug abuse. 2018In State v. Rogers , 323 N.C. 658 , 662-63, 374 S.E.2d 852 , 855-56 (1989), our Supreme Court held there was no error in the prosecutor's argument that the community deserved to be safe, drug-free, and that young people should be warned about drug abuse. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
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.