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.
26 North Carolina opinions name it 3 courts 1956–2022 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
De Luca v. Steingreen2 sentences2022De Luca v. Stein, 261 N.C. App. 118, 128 (2018). 2022De Luca v. Stein, 261 N.C. App. 118, 128 (2018). | 3 | 3 |
State v. Cookgreen2 sentences2011The analysis determines the prior blood alcohol level on the bases of (1) the time elapsed between the occurrence of the specified earlier event (e.g., a vehicle crash) and the known blood test, and (2) the rate of elimination of alcohol from the subject’s blood during the time between the event and the test.” State v. Cook, 362 N.C. 285, 288 , 661 S.E.2d 874, 876 (2008). 2011The analysis determines the prior blood alcohol level on the bases of (1) the time elapsed between the occurrence of the specified earlier event (e.g., a vehicle crash) and the known blood test, and (2) the rate of elimination of alcohol from the subject’s blood during the time between the event and the test.” State v. Cook, 362 N.C. 285, 288 , 661 S.E.2d 874, 876 (2008). | 2 | 2 |
Franks v. Delawaregreen2 sentences2019Id . at 155-56, 98 S.Ct. at 2676 , 57 L.Ed. 2d at 672 . 2019Id . at 155-56, 98 S.Ct. at 2676 , 57 L.Ed. 2d at 672 . | 1 | 7 |
Ridge Community Investors, Inc. v. Berrygreen2 sentences2014Validity of the Preliminary Injunction “[A preliminary injunction] will be issued only (1) if a plaintiff is able to show likelihood of success on the merits of his case and (2) if a plaintiff is likely to sustain irreparable loss unless the injunction is issued, or if, in the opinion of the Court, issuance is necessary for the protection of a plaintiff’s rights during the course of litigation.” Ridge Cmty. Investors, Inc. v. Berry, 293 N.C. 688, 701 , 239 S.E.2d 566, 574 (1977). “[O]n appeal from an order of superior court granting or denying a preliminary injunction, an appellate court is no 2014Validity of the Preliminary Injunction “[A preliminary injunction] will be issued only (1) if a plaintiff is able to show likelihood of success on the merits of his case and (2) if a plaintiff is likely to sustain irreparable loss unless the injunction is issued, or if, in the opinion of the Court, issuance is necessary for the protection of a plaintiff’s rights during the course of litigation.” Ridge Cmty. Investors, Inc. v. Berry, 293 N.C. 688, 701 , 239 S.E.2d 566, 574 (1977). “[O]n appeal from an order of superior court granting or denying a preliminary injunction, an appellate court is no | 1 | 1 |
State v. Floydgreen2 sentences2014App. 290, 295 , 558 S.E.2d 237, 240 (2002). 2014An error rises to the level of plain error in the event that the error in question is “so fundamental that it undermines the fairness of the trial, or [has] a probable impact on the guilty verdict.” State v. Floyd, 148 N.C. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Hannahgreen2 sentences2014By definition, a convicted criminal defendant is not entitled to relief on “plain error” grounds in the event that no error of law was involved in the admission of the challenged evidence or the delivery of the challenged instruction. -30- under the “‘totality of the circumstances,’” was “‘so unnecessarily suggestive and conducive to irreparable mistaken identity as to offend fundamental standards of decency and justice.’” Id., 353 N.C. at 618 , 548 S.E.2d at 698 (quoting State v. Hannah, 312 N.C. 286, 290 , 322 S.E.2d 148, 151 (1984)). 2014By definition, a convicted criminal defendant is not entitled to relief on “plain error” grounds in the event that no error of law was involved in the admission of the challenged evidence or the delivery of the challenged instruction. -30- under the “‘totality of the circumstances,’” was “‘so unnecessarily suggestive and conducive to irreparable mistaken identity as to offend fundamental standards of decency and justice.’” Id., 353 N.C. at 618 , 548 S.E.2d at 698 (quoting State v. Hannah, 312 N.C. 286, 290 , 322 S.E.2d 148, 151 (1984)). | 1 | 1 |
Dugan v. Smerwick Sewerage Companygreen1 sentence2009The court in Dugan held, “[u]nlike its Rule 11 counterpart, which now assigns to the discretion of the district court whether to impose sanctions for a violation of the rule . . . , Rule 26(g)(3) still requires that sanctions be imposed in the event of a violation.” Dugan, 142 F.3d. at 407 (internal citations omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Aikens v. Ludlumgreen1 sentence2007App. 823, 824 , 440 S.E.2d 319, 320 (1994). {33} Viewed in that context, it is difficult to see how a $1.00 offer of judgment tendered at the very inception of the litigation promotes the Rule’s purpose, given that it has “little if any chance of seriously opening negotiations or of settling a case.” Century 21 Today, Inc. v. Tarrant, No. 240696, 2003 Mich. App. LEXIS 2762 , at *2 (Mich. Ct. App. Oct. 28, 2003). {34} Thus, I find that AMEX’s $1.00 offer of judgment was not intended to promote a settlement but instead was a tactical maneuver intended to trigger the cost-shifting mandate of Rule | 1 | 1 |
State v. Cartergreen2 sentences2002See 2 U.S.C. § 2c (2000); Whitcomb, 403 U.S. at 158 -59 n. 39, 91 S.Ct. 1858, 1877 , 29 L.Ed.2d at 385 n. 39. [6] It is beyond dispute that this Court "ha[s] the authority to construe [the State Constitution] differently from the construction by the United States Supreme Court of the Federal Constitution, as long as our citizens are thereby accorded no lesser rights than they are guaranteed by the parallel federal provision." State v. Carter, 322 N.C. 709, 713 , 370 S.E.2d 553, 555 (1988). [7] In the event such a hearing is requested on remand, the trial court is authorized to take all necessa 2002See 2 U.S.C. § 2c (2000); Whitcomb, 403 U.S. at 158 -59 n. 39, 91 S.Ct. 1858, 1877 , 29 L.Ed.2d at 385 n. 39. [6] It is beyond dispute that this Court "ha[s] the authority to construe [the State Constitution] differently from the construction by the United States Supreme Court of the Federal Constitution, as long as our citizens are thereby accorded no lesser rights than they are guaranteed by the parallel federal provision." State v. Carter, 322 N.C. 709, 713 , 370 S.E.2d 553, 555 (1988). [7] In the event such a hearing is requested on remand, the trial court is authorized to take all necessa | 1 | 1 |
State v. Louchheimgreen2 sentences1979Id. at —, 57 L.Ed. 2d at 672 , 98 S.Ct. at 2676-77 , accord, State v. Louchheim, 296 N.C. 314, 320-21 , 250 S.E. 2d 630, 635 (1979). 1979Id. at —, 57 L.Ed. 2d at 672 , 98 S.Ct. at 2676-77 , accord, State v. Louchheim, 296 N.C. 314, 320-21 , 250 S.E. 2d 630, 635 (1979). | 1 | 1 |
Hazel B. McTighe v. New England Telephone and Telegraph Companygreen2 sentences1975Furthermore, Southern Bell argues that it has no monopoly on advertising, with the result that its bargaining power, while there may be some disparity, “is no more than may be found generally to exist. ...” McTighe v. New England Telephone and Telegraph Co., 216 F. 2d 26, 28 (2d Cir. 1954). 1975Furthermore, Southern Bell argues that it has no monopoly on advertising, with the result that its bargaining power, while there may be some disparity, "is no more than may be found generally to exist. . .." McTighe v. New England Telephone and Telegraph Co., 216 F.2d 26, 28 (2d Cir. 1954). | 1 | 1 |
Cutler v. Winfieldgreen2 sentences1956See Cutler v. Winfield, 241 N.C. 555 , 85 S.E. 2d 913 . 1956See Cutler v. Winfield, 241 N.C. 555 , 85 S.E. 2d 913 . | 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. Moore
green
1 sentence2017App. ----, ----, 795 S.E.2d 598 , 600 (2016). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
United States v. Scott
green
2 sentences2016But "[t]he Double Jeopardy Clause *350 does protect a defendant against governmental actions intended to provoke mistrial requests and thereby to subject defendants to the substantial burdens imposed by multiple prosecutions." Id . at 611 [ 96 S.Ct. 1075 ]. *578 Scott , 437 U.S. at 93 -94 , 98 S.Ct. at 2195, 57 L.Ed.2d at 76 . 2016But "[t]he Double Jeopardy Clause *350 does protect a defendant against governmental actions intended to provoke mistrial requests and thereby to subject defendants to the substantial burdens imposed by multiple prosecutions." Id . at 611 [ 96 S.Ct. 1075 ]. *578 Scott , 437 U.S. at 93 -94 , 98 S.Ct. at 2195, 57 L.Ed.2d at 76 . | 1 | 2016–2016 |
United States v. Dinitz
green
2 sentences2016"The important consideration, for purposes of the Double Jeopardy Clause, is that the defendant retain primary control over the course to be followed in the event of such error." United States v. Dinitz , 424 U.S. 600 , 609 [ 96 S.Ct. 1075 ], 47 L.Ed.2d 267 (1976). 2016"The important consideration, for purposes of the Double Jeopardy Clause, is that the defendant retain primary control over the course to be followed in the event of such error." United States v. Dinitz , 424 U.S. 600 , 609 [ 96 S.Ct. 1075 ], 47 L.Ed.2d 267 (1976). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
State v. Jordan
green
1 sentence2014By definition, a convicted criminal defendant is not entitled to relief on “plain error” grounds in the event that no error of law was involved in the admission of the challenged evidence or the delivery of the challenged instruction. -30- under the “‘totality of the circumstances,’” was “‘so unnecessarily suggestive and conducive to irreparable mistaken identity as to offend fundamental standards of decency and justice.’” Id., 353 N.C. at 618 , 548 S.E.2d at 698 (quoting State v. Hannah, 312 N.C. 286, 290 , 322 S.E.2d 148, 151 (1984)). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
State v. Fowler
green
2 sentences2014By definition, a convicted criminal defendant is not entitled to relief on “plain error” grounds in the event that no error of law was involved in the admission of the challenged evidence or the delivery of the challenged instruction. -30- under the “‘totality of the circumstances,’” was “‘so unnecessarily suggestive and conducive to irreparable mistaken identity as to offend fundamental standards of decency and justice.’” Id., 353 N.C. at 618 , 548 S.E.2d at 698 (quoting State v. Hannah, 312 N.C. 286, 290 , 322 S.E.2d 148, 151 (1984)). 2014By definition, a convicted criminal defendant is not entitled to relief on “plain error” grounds in the event that no error of law was involved in the admission of the challenged evidence or the delivery of the challenged instruction. -30- under the “‘totality of the circumstances,’” was “‘so unnecessarily suggestive and conducive to irreparable mistaken identity as to offend fundamental standards of decency and justice.’” Id., 353 N.C. at 618 , 548 S.E.2d at 698 (quoting State v. Hannah, 312 N.C. 286, 290 , 322 S.E.2d 148, 151 (1984)). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Whitcomb v. Chavis
green
2 sentences2002See 2 U.S.C. § 2c (2000); Whitcomb, 403 U.S. at 158 -59 n. 39, 91 S.Ct. 1858, 1877 , 29 L.Ed.2d at 385 n. 39. [6] It is beyond dispute that this Court "ha[s] the authority to construe [the State Constitution] differently from the construction by the United States Supreme Court of the Federal Constitution, as long as our citizens are thereby accorded no lesser rights than they are guaranteed by the parallel federal provision." State v. Carter, 322 N.C. 709, 713 , 370 S.E.2d 553, 555 (1988). [7] In the event such a hearing is requested on remand, the trial court is authorized to take all necessa 2002See 2 U.S.C. § 2c (2000); Whitcomb, 403 U.S. at 158 -59 n. 39, 91 S.Ct. 1858, 1877 , 29 L.Ed.2d at 385 n. 39. [6] It is beyond dispute that this Court "ha[s] the authority to construe [the State Constitution] differently from the construction by the United States Supreme Court of the Federal Constitution, as long as our citizens are thereby accorded no lesser rights than they are guaranteed by the parallel federal provision." State v. Carter, 322 N.C. 709, 713 , 370 S.E.2d 553, 555 (1988). [7] In the event such a hearing is requested on remand, the trial court is authorized to take all necessa | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Thomas M. McInnis & Associates, Inc. v. Hall
green
2 sentences1998Id. at 427-28 , 349 S.E.2d at 556 . 1998Id. at 427-28 , 349 S.E.2d at 556 . | 1 | 1998–1998 |
State v. Cooke
green
2 sentences1972“Obviously, the breathalyzer can measure only the amount of alcohol which is in a person’s blood at the time the test is given. ... [I]t is undoubtedly true that the sooner after the event the test is made, the more accurate will be the estimate of blood-alcohol concentration at the time of the act in issue.” State v. Cooke, 270 N.C. 644 , 155 S.E. 2d 165 (1967). 1972“Obviously, the breathalyzer can measure only the amount of alcohol which is in a person’s blood at the time the test is given. ... [I]t is undoubtedly true that the sooner after the event the test is made, the more accurate will be the estimate of blood-alcohol concentration at the time of the act in issue.” State v. Cooke, 270 N.C. 644 , 155 S.E. 2d 165 (1967). | 1 | 1972–1972 |
State v. Fornier
green
2 sentences1967State v. Fornier, 103 N.H. 152 , 167 A. 2d 56 ; Donigan, Chemical Tests and the Law, 45 (2d Ed., 1966). 1967State v. Fornier, 103 N.H. 152 , 167 A. 2d 56 ; Donigan, Chemical Tests and the Law, 45 (2d Ed., 1966). | 1 | 1967–1967 |
Huskins v. Yancey Hospital
green
2 sentences1964This Court said in Huskins v. Hospital, 238 N.C. 357 , 78 S.E. 2d 116 : “On an appeal from an order granting or refusing an interlocutory injunction, the Supreme Court is not bound by the findings of fact of the judge hearing the application for the writ. 1964This Court said in Huskins v. Hospital, 238 N.C. 357 , 78 S.E. 2d 116 : “On an appeal from an order granting or refusing an interlocutory injunction, the Supreme Court is not bound by the findings of fact of the judge hearing the application for the writ. | 1 | 1964–1964 |
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.