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.
22 North Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1952–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
In Re M.G.T.-B.green2 sentences2009"However, even when the trial court commits error in allowing the admission of hearsay statements, one must show that such error was prejudicial in order to warrant reversal." In re M.G.T.-B., 177 N.C. 2009Even assuming arguendo that this testimony constituted inadmissible hearsay, respondent father has failed to show that he was harmed by the admission of this testimony. [2] It is well established that "even when the trial court commits error in allowing the admission of hearsay statements, one must show that such error was prejudicial in order to warrant reversal." In re M.G.T.-B, 177 N.C.App. 771, 775 , 629 S.E.2d 916, 919 (2006). | 6 | 6 |
In Re TMgreen2 sentences2007See In re T.M., ___ N.C.App. ___, ___, 638 S.E.2d 236, 241-42 (2006) (citing In re M.G.T.-B., 177 N.C.App. 771, 775 , 629 S.E.2d 916, 919 (2006)) (holding that "even when the trial court commits error in allowing the admission of hearsay statements, one must show that such error was prejudicial in order to warrant reversal"). 2007See In re T.M., ___ N.C.App. ___, ___, 638 S.E.2d 236 , 241-42 (2006) (citing In re M.G.T.-B., 177 N.C.App. 771 , 775, 629 S.E.2d 916 , 919 (2006)) (holding that "even when the trial court commits error in allowing the admission of hearsay statements, one must show that such error was prejudicial in order to warrant reversal"). | 2 | 2 |
In re Z.L.W.green2 sentences2020As an additional matter, we note that this Court has rejected arguments that the trial court commits error at the dispositional stage of a termination of parental rights proceeding by failing to explicitly consider non-termination-related dispositional alternatives, such as awarding custody of or guardianship over the child to the foster family, by reiterating that “the paramount consideration must always be the best interests of the child.” In re J.J.B., 374 N.C. 787 , 795, 845 S.E.2d 1 , 6 (2020); see also In re Z.A.M., 374 N.C. 88 , 100–01, 839 S.E.2d 792 , 800–01 (2020); In re Z.L.W., 372 2020As an additional matter, we note that this Court has rejected arguments that the trial court commits error at the dispositional stage of a termination of parental rights proceeding by failing to explicitly consider non-termination-related dispositional alternatives, such as awarding custody of or guardianship over the child to the foster family, by reiterating that “the paramount consideration must always be the best interests of the child.” In re J.J.B., 374 N.C. 787 , 795, 845 S.E.2d 1 , 6 (2020); see also In re Z.A.M., 374 N.C. 88 , 100–01, 839 S.E.2d 792 , 800–01 (2020); In re Z.L.W., 372 | 1 | 1 |
State v. Toddgreen2 sentences2018This obligation arises "[r]egardless of requests by the parties," id. , and a trial court commits error if it fails to meet this obligation, see State v. Todd , 264 N.C. 524 , 531, 142 S.E.2d 154 , 159 (1965). 2018This obligation arises "[r]egardless of requests by the parties," id. , and a trial court commits error if it fails to meet this obligation, see State v. Todd , 264 N.C. 524 , 531, 142 S.E.2d 154 , 159 (1965). | 1 | 1 |
In Re FGJgreen1 sentence2013App. 681, 687-88 , 684 S.E.2d 745, 750 (2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Bagleygreen2 sentences2010Plain error arises where a trial court commits an error "so fundamental as to amount to a miscarriage of justice or which probably resulted in the jury reaching a different verdict than it otherwise would have reached." State v. Bagley, 321 N.C. 201, 213 , 362 S.E.2d 244, 251 (1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 1036 , 99 L. 2010Plain error arises where a trial court commits an error "so fundamental as to amount to a miscarriage of justice or which probably resulted in the jury reaching a different verdict than it otherwise would have reached." State v. Bagley, 321 N.C. 201, 213 , 362 S.E.2d 244, 251 (1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 1036 , 99 L. | 1 | 1 |
State v. McElroygreen1 sentence2009If a trial court commits error in admitting evidence at trial, "relief will not ordinarily be granted absent a showing of prejudice." Id. at 756, 392 S.E.2d at 69. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Rameygreen2 sentences2006State v. Ramey, 318 N.C. 457, 470 , 349 S.E.2d 566, 574 (1986) (“It is well established that the erroneous admission of hearsay, like the erroneous admission of other evidence, is not always so prejudicial as to require a new trial.”). 2006State v. Ramey, 318 N.C. 457, 470 , 349 S.E.2d 566, 574 (1986) (“It is well established that the erroneous admission of hearsay, like the erroneous admission of other evidence, is not always so prejudicial as to require a new trial.”). | 1 | 1 |
Jacobs v. Lockleargreen2 sentences2003Eason v. Barber, 89 N.C.App. 294 , 365 S.E.2d 672 (1988) (citing Jacobs v. Locklear, 310 N.C. 735, 736-37 , 314 S.E.2d 544, 545 (1984)). 2003Eason v. Barber, 89 N.C.App. 294 , 365 S.E.2d 672 (1988) (citing Jacobs v. Locklear, 310 N.C. 735, 736-37 , 314 S.E.2d 544, 545 (1984)). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Averygreen2 sentences2002State v. Avery, 315 N.C. 1, 33 , 337 S.E.2d 786, 804 (1985). 2002State v. Avery, 315 N.C. 1, 33 , 337 S.E.2d 786, 804 (1985). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Jonesgreen2 sentences1990State v. Jones, 309 N.C. 214, 218-219 , 306 S.E.2d 451, 454 (1983). 1990State v. Jones, 309 N.C. 214, 218-219 , 306 S.E.2d 451, 454 (1983). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Williamsgreen2 sentences1982G.S. 15A-1443(b); see State v. Williams (I), 304 N.C. 394, 425-26 , 284 S.E.2d 437, 456-57 (1981) (erroneous submission of aggravating circumstance was prejudicial and required new sentencing hearing); State v. Taylor, supra, 304 N.C. at 285-88, 283 S.E.2d at 783-85 (erroneous submission of aggravating circumstance was not prejudicial). 1982G.S. 15A-1443(b); see State v. Williams (I), 304 N.C. 394, 425-26 , 284 S.E.2d 437, 456-57 (1981) (erroneous submission of aggravating circumstance was prejudicial and required new sentencing hearing); State v. Taylor, supra, 304 N.C. at 285-88, 283 S.E.2d at 783-85 (erroneous submission of aggravating circumstance was not prejudicial). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Taylorgreen2 sentences1982G.S. 15A-1443(b); see State v. Williams (I), 304 N.C. 394, 425-26 , 284 S.E.2d 437, 456-57 (1981) (erroneous submission of aggravating circumstance was prejudicial and required new sentencing hearing); State v. Taylor, supra, 304 N.C. at 285-88, 283 S.E.2d at 783-85 (erroneous submission of aggravating circumstance was not prejudicial). 1982G.S. 15A-1443(b); see State v. Williams (I), 304 N.C. 394, 425-26 , 284 S.E.2d 437, 456-57 (1981) (erroneous submission of aggravating circumstance was prejudicial and required new sentencing hearing); State v. Taylor, supra, 304 N.C. at 285-88, 283 S.E.2d at 783-85 (erroneous submission of aggravating circumstance was not prejudicial). | 1 | 1 |
Watson v. . Davisgreen1 sentence1980In Watson v. Davis, 52 N.C. 178, 181 (1859), our Supreme Court explained the reason for the rule as follows: “The jury ought to make up their verdict upon evidence offered to their senses, i.e., what they see and hear in the presence of the court, and should not be allowed to take papers, which have been received as competent evidence, into the jury room, so as to make a comparison of handwriting, or draw any other inference which their imaginations may suggest, because the opposite party ought to have an opportunity to reply to any suggestion of an inference contrary to what was made in open | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Eason v. Barber
green
2 sentences2003Eason v. Barber, 89 N.C.App. 294 , 365 S.E.2d 672 (1988) (citing Jacobs v. Locklear, 310 N.C. 735, 736-37 , 314 S.E.2d 544, 545 (1984)). 1996App. 294 , 365 S.E.2d 672 (1988), this Court held where the trial court commits an error of law, the movant is entitled to a new trial. | 2 | 1996–2003 |
State v. Lamb
green
1 sentence2025State v. Lamb, 44 N.C. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Harris
green
2 sentences2018This obligation arises “[r]egardless of requests by the parties,” id., and a trial court commits error if it fails to meet this obligation, see State v. Todd, 264 N.C. 524, 531 , 142 S.E.2d 154, 159 (1965). 2018This obligation arises "[r]egardless of requests by the parties," id. , and a trial court commits error if it fails to meet this obligation, see State v. Todd , 264 N.C. 524 , 531, 142 S.E.2d 154 , 159 (1965). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Wells
green
1 sentence2014App. 311 , 278 S.E.2d 527 (1981), for the proposition that a trial court commits error when it admits accident reconstruction testimony of a witness who did not observe the accident occur and is not qualified as an expert in accident reconstruction. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
In re F.G.J. & M.G.J.
green
1 sentence2013Even so, “ [i]t is well established that even when the trial court commits error in allowing the admission of hearsay statements, one must show that such error was prejudicial in order to warrant reversal.” In re F.G.J., M.G.J., 200 N.C. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
State v. Loftin
green
2 sentences2010Ed. 2d 912 (1988). "[I]t is the duty of [a] trial court to instruct the jury on all of the substantive features of a case." Loftin, 322 N.C. at 381 , 368 S.E.2d at 617 . 2010Ed. 2d 912 (1988). "[I]t is the duty of [a] trial court to instruct the jury on all of the substantive features of a case." Loftin, 322 N.C. at 381 , 368 S.E.2d at 617 . | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Laracuente v. Connecticut
green
1 sentence2010Plain error arises where a trial court commits an error "so fundamental as to amount to a miscarriage of justice or which probably resulted in the jury reaching a different verdict than it otherwise would have reached." State v. Bagley, 321 N.C. 201, 213 , 362 S.E.2d 244, 251 (1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 1036 , 99 L. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Green v. Barker
neutral
2 sentences1977Green v. Barker, 254 N.C. 603 , 119 S.E. 2d 456 (1961). 1977Green v. Barker, 254 N.C. 603 , 119 S.E. 2d 456 (1961). | 1 | 1977–1977 |
Simms v. . Sampson
neutral
2 sentences1952Simms v. Sampson, 221 N.C. 379 , 20 S.E. 2d 554 ; Temple v. Hay, 184 N.C. 239 , 114 S.E. 162 . 1952Simms v. Sampson, 221 N.C. 379 , 20 S.E. 2d 554 ; Temple v. Hay, 184 N.C. 239 , 114 S.E. 162 . | 1 | 1952–1952 |
Temple v. Eades Hay Co.
neutral
2 sentences1952Simms v. Sampson, 221 N.C. 379 , 20 S.E. 2d 554 ; Temple v. Hay, 184 N.C. 239 , 114 S.E. 162 . 1952Simms v. Sampson, 221 N.C. 379 , 20 S.E. 2d 554 ; Temple v. Hay, 184 N.C. 239 , 114 S.E. 162 . | 1 | 1952–1952 |
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.