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 1905–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Gaineygreen2 sentences2018See State v. Gainey , 355 N.C. 73 , 110, 558 S.E.2d 463 , 486 ("To the extent that defendant agreed with the trial court's manner of instruction, defendant has invited any alleged error, and he may not obtain relief from such error"), cert. denied , 537 U.S. 896 , 154 L.Ed. 2d 165 (2002) ; State v. White , 349 N.C. 535 , 570, 508 S.E.2d 253 , 275 (1998) (" Where a defendant tells the trial court that he has no objection to an instruction, he will not be heard to complain on appeal"), cert. denied , 527 U.S. 1026 , 144 L.Ed. 2d 779 (1999). 2018See State v. Gainey , 355 N.C. 73 , 110, 558 S.E.2d 463 , 486 ("To the extent that defendant agreed with the trial court's manner of instruction, defendant has invited any alleged error, and he may not obtain relief from such error"), cert. denied , 537 U.S. 896 , 154 L.Ed. 2d 165 (2002) ; State v. White , 349 N.C. 535 , 570, 508 S.E.2d 253 , 275 (1998) (" Where a defendant tells the trial court that he has no objection to an instruction, he will not be heard to complain on appeal"), cert. denied , 527 U.S. 1026 , 144 L.Ed. 2d 779 (1999). | 2 | 5 |
State v. Wilkinsongreen2 sentences2024Id. 2004In State v. Wilkinson, the defendant submitted a jury instruction in writing on the meaning of “depravity of mind” that read, “ ‘a circumstance which makes a murder unusually heinous, atrocious, or cruel.’ ” 344 N.C. 198, 212-13 , 474 S.E.2d 375, 382-83 (1996). | 1 | 3 |
State v. Gardnergreen2 sentences1993Defendant may carry this burden by “alert[ing] the appellate court that no action was taken by counsel at trial and then establishing] his right to review by asserting the manner in which the exception was preserved or how the error may be noticed although not brought to the attention of the trial court.” Id. at 447-48 , 340 S.E.2d at 705 (citation omitted). 1993Defendant may carry this burden by “alert[ing] the appellate court that no action was taken by counsel at trial and then establishing] his right to review by asserting the manner in which the exception was preserved or how the error may be noticed although not brought to the attention of the trial court.” Id. at 447-48 , 340 S.E.2d at 705 (citation omitted). | 1 | 2 |
Cornish v. United Statesgreen1 sentence2018See State v. Gainey , 355 N.C. 73 , 110, 558 S.E.2d 463 , 486 ("To the extent that defendant agreed with the trial court's manner of instruction, defendant has invited any alleged error, and he may not obtain relief from such error"), cert. denied , 537 U.S. 896 , 154 L.Ed. 2d 165 (2002) ; State v. White , 349 N.C. 535 , 570, 508 S.E.2d 253 , 275 (1998) (" Where a defendant tells the trial court that he has no objection to an instruction, he will not be heard to complain on appeal"), cert. denied , 527 U.S. 1026 , 144 L.Ed. 2d 779 (1999). | 1 | 1 |
Gonzalez Et Vir v. State Bar of Californiagreen1 sentence2018See State v. Gainey , 355 N.C. 73 , 110, 558 S.E.2d 463 , 486 ("To the extent that defendant agreed with the trial court's manner of instruction, defendant has invited any alleged error, and he may not obtain relief from such error"), cert. denied , 537 U.S. 896 , 154 L.Ed. 2d 165 (2002) ; State v. White , 349 N.C. 535 , 570, 508 S.E.2d 253 , 275 (1998) (" Where a defendant tells the trial court that he has no objection to an instruction, he will not be heard to complain on appeal"), cert. denied , 527 U.S. 1026 , 144 L.Ed. 2d 779 (1999). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Whitegreen2 sentences2018See State v. Gainey , 355 N.C. 73 , 110, 558 S.E.2d 463 , 486 ("To the extent that defendant agreed with the trial court's manner of instruction, defendant has invited any alleged error, and he may not obtain relief from such error"), cert. denied , 537 U.S. 896 , 154 L.Ed. 2d 165 (2002) ; State v. White , 349 N.C. 535 , 570, 508 S.E.2d 253 , 275 (1998) (" Where a defendant tells the trial court that he has no objection to an instruction, he will not be heard to complain on appeal"), cert. denied , 527 U.S. 1026 , 144 L.Ed. 2d 779 (1999). 2018See State v. Gainey , 355 N.C. 73 , 110, 558 S.E.2d 463 , 486 ("To the extent that defendant agreed with the trial court's manner of instruction, defendant has invited any alleged error, and he may not obtain relief from such error"), cert. denied , 537 U.S. 896 , 154 L.Ed. 2d 165 (2002) ; State v. White , 349 N.C. 535 , 570, 508 S.E.2d 253 , 275 (1998) (" Where a defendant tells the trial court that he has no objection to an instruction, he will not be heard to complain on appeal"), cert. denied , 527 U.S. 1026 , 144 L.Ed. 2d 779 (1999). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Thompsongreen2 sentences2015As our Supreme Court has held: “ ‘To the extent that defendant agreed with the trial court’s manner of instruction, defendant has invited any alleged error, and he may not obtain relief from such error.’ ” State v. Thompson, 359 N.C. 77, 103 , 604 S.E.2d 850, 869 (2004) (quoting Gainey, 355 N.C. at 110 , 558 S.E.2d at 486 ). 2015As our Supreme Court has held: “ ‘To the extent that defendant agreed with the trial court’s manner of instruction, defendant has invited any alleged error, and he may not obtain relief from such error.’ ” State v. Thompson, 359 N.C. 77, 103 , 604 S.E.2d 850, 869 (2004) (quoting Gainey, 355 N.C. at 110 , 558 S.E.2d at 486 ). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. William Adderson Jarrettgreen1 sentence2013For example, in United States v. Day, 591 F.3d 679, 683 (4th Cir. 2010), the Court stated that First of all, under the applicable test, “[t]he defendant bears the burden of proving that an agency relationship exists” between the Government and the private individual. . . . [The] “two primary factors” to be considered [are]: (1) “whether the Government knew of and acquiesced in the private” individual’s challenged conduct; and (2) “whether the private individual intended to assist law enforcement or had some other independent motivation.” (quoting United States v. Jarrett, 338 F.3d 339, 344 (4t | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Daygreen1 sentence2013For example, in United States v. Day, 591 F.3d 679, 683 (4th Cir. 2010), the Court stated that First of all, under the applicable test, “[t]he defendant bears the burden of proving that an agency relationship exists” between the Government and the private individual. . . . [The] “two primary factors” to be considered [are]: (1) “whether the Government knew of and acquiesced in the private” individual’s challenged conduct; and (2) “whether the private individual intended to assist law enforcement or had some other independent motivation.” (quoting United States v. Jarrett, 338 F.3d 339, 344 (4t | 1 | 1 |
Coach Co. v. . Leegreen2 sentences2009In describing the manner in which these factors should be applied, the Supreme Court has emphasized the fundamental “distinction between the admissibility of evidence and its weight, the latter of which is a matter traditionally reserved for the jury.” Howerton, 358 N.C. at 460 , 597 S.E.2d at 687 (citing Queen City Coach Co. v. Lee, 218 N.C. 320, 323 , 11 S.E.2d 341, 343 (1940) (stating that “[t]he competency, admissibility, and sufficiency of the evidence is a matter for the court to determine. [Its] credibility, probative force, and weight is a matter for the jury”)). “[A] trial court’s rul 2009In describing the manner in which these factors should be applied, the Supreme Court has emphasized the fundamental “distinction between the admissibility of evidence and its weight, the latter of which is a matter traditionally reserved for the jury.” Howerton, 358 N.C. at 460 , 597 S.E.2d at 687 (citing Queen City Coach Co. v. Lee, 218 N.C. 320, 323 , 11 S.E.2d 341, 343 (1940) (stating that “[t]he competency, admissibility, and sufficiency of the evidence is a matter for the court to determine. [Its] credibility, probative force, and weight is a matter for the jury”)). “[A] trial court’s rul | 1 | 1 |
State v. Wilkinsgreen1 sentence2009“An abuse of discretion occurs when a trial judge’s ruling is manifestly unsupported by reason.” State v. Summers, 177 *22 N.C. | 1 | 1 |
Ponder v. Davisgreen2 sentences1976“A fair jury in jury cases and an impartial judge in all cases are prime requisites of due process.” It is a maxim that “ ‘ [e] very litigant, including the state in criminal cases, is entitled to nothing less than the cold neutrality of an impartial judge.’ ” Ponder v. Davis, 233 N.C. 699, 703-04 , 65 S.E. 2d 356, 359 (1951). 1976“A fair jury in jury cases and an impartial judge in all cases are prime requisites of due process.” It is a maxim that “ ‘ [e] very litigant, including the state in criminal cases, is entitled to nothing less than the cold neutrality of an impartial judge.’ ” Ponder v. Davis, 233 N.C. 699, 703-04 , 65 S.E. 2d 356, 359 (1951). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Stewart v. . Carpet Co.
neutral
2 sentences1930Walker, J., in Stewart v. Carpet Co., 138 N. C., 60 , clearly states tbe law in this respect: ‘The doctrine does not dispense with tbe requirement that tbe party who alleges negligence must prove tbe fact, but relates only to tbe mode of proving it. 1930Walker, J. , in Stewart v. Carpet Co. , 138 N.C. 60 , clearly states the law in this respect: `The doctrine does not dispense with the requirement that the party who alleges negligence must prove the fact, but relates only to the mode of proving it. | 3 | 1905–1930 |
Womble v. . Grocery Co.
green
2 sentences1930Machine started by some means and tore off my arm to my elbow, knocked me numb or paralyzed.” The Court in that case, at p. 119, said: “To prevent any misconstruction of the circumstances under which or the manner in which this principle applies in the trial of such cause we wish to restate what was said in Womble v. Grocery Co., 135 N. C., 474 : ‘The principle of res ipsa loquitur in such eases carries the question of negligence to the jury, not relieving the plaintiff of the burden of proof, and not raising any pre sumption in bis favor, but simply entitling tbe jury, in view of all tbe circ 1930Machine started by some means and tore off my arm to my elbow, knocked me numb or paralyzed." The Court in that case, at p. 119, said: "To prevent any misconstruction of the circumstances under which or the manner in which this principle applies in the trial of such cause we wish to restate what was said in Womble v. Grocery Co. , 135 N.C. 474 : `The principle of res ipsa loquitur in such cases carries the question of negligence to the jury, not relieving the plaintiff of the burden of proof, and not raising any presumption *Page 384 in his favor, but simply entitling the jury, in view of all | 2 | 1930–1930 |
Lowery v. Greiner
green
1 sentence2018See State v. Gainey , 355 N.C. 73 , 110, 558 S.E.2d 463 , 486 ("To the extent that defendant agreed with the trial court's manner of instruction, defendant has invited any alleged error, and he may not obtain relief from such error"), cert. denied , 537 U.S. 896 , 154 L.Ed. 2d 165 (2002) ; State v. White , 349 N.C. 535 , 570, 508 S.E.2d 253 , 275 (1998) (" Where a defendant tells the trial court that he has no objection to an instruction, he will not be heard to complain on appeal"), cert. denied , 527 U.S. 1026 , 144 L.Ed. 2d 779 (1999). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Lowery v. Greiner
green
1 sentence2018See State v. Gainey , 355 N.C. 73 , 110, 558 S.E.2d 463 , 486 ("To the extent that defendant agreed with the trial court's manner of instruction, defendant has invited any alleged error, and he may not obtain relief from such error"), cert. denied , 537 U.S. 896 , 154 L.Ed. 2d 165 (2002) ; State v. White , 349 N.C. 535 , 570, 508 S.E.2d 253 , 275 (1998) (" Where a defendant tells the trial court that he has no objection to an instruction, he will not be heard to complain on appeal"), cert. denied , 527 U.S. 1026 , 144 L.Ed. 2d 779 (1999). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Nasirichampang v. California
neutral
1 sentence2013For example, in United States v. Day, 591 F.3d 679, 683 (4th Cir. 2010), the Court stated that First of all, under the applicable test, “[t]he defendant bears the burden of proving that an agency relationship exists” between the Government and the private individual. . . . [The] “two primary factors” to be considered [are]: (1) “whether the Government knew of and acquiesced in the private” individual’s challenged conduct; and (2) “whether the private individual intended to assist law enforcement or had some other independent motivation.” (quoting United States v. Jarrett, 338 F.3d 339, 344 (4t | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Greco v. Bernback
green
1 sentence2013For example, in United States v. Day, 591 F.3d 679, 683 (4th Cir. 2010), the Court stated that First of all, under the applicable test, “[t]he defendant bears the burden of proving that an agency relationship exists” between the Government and the private individual. . . . [The] “two primary factors” to be considered [are]: (1) “whether the Government knew of and acquiesced in the private” individual’s challenged conduct; and (2) “whether the private individual intended to assist law enforcement or had some other independent motivation.” (quoting United States v. Jarrett, 338 F.3d 339, 344 (4t | 1 | 2013–2013 |
State v. Mauck
green
1 sentence2012In Mauck , the defendant pled guilty to two drug-related charges in Haywood County and was placed on probation. 204 N.C. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
In the Matter of Yocum
red
2 sentences2009In describing the manner in which these factors should be applied, the Supreme Court has emphasized the fundamental “distinction between the admissibility of evidence and its weight, the latter of which is a matter traditionally reserved for the jury.” Howerton, 358 N.C. at 460 , 597 S.E.2d at 687 (citing Queen City Coach Co. v. Lee, 218 N.C. 320, 323 , 11 S.E.2d 341, 343 (1940) (stating that “[t]he competency, admissibility, and sufficiency of the evidence is a matter for the court to determine. [Its] credibility, probative force, and weight is a matter for the jury”)). “[A] trial court’s rul 2009In describing the manner in which these factors should be applied, the Supreme Court has emphasized the fundamental “distinction between the admissibility of evidence and its weight, the latter of which is a matter traditionally reserved for the jury.” Howerton, 358 N.C. at 460 , 597 S.E.2d at 687 (citing Queen City Coach Co. v. Lee, 218 N.C. 320, 323 , 11 S.E.2d 341, 343 (1940) (stating that “[t]he competency, admissibility, and sufficiency of the evidence is a matter for the court to determine. [Its] credibility, probative force, and weight is a matter for the jury”)). “[A] trial court’s rul | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Howerton v. Arai Helmet, Ltd.
red
2 sentences2009In describing the manner in which these factors should be applied, the Supreme Court has emphasized the fundamental “distinction between the admissibility of evidence and its weight, the latter of which is a matter traditionally reserved for the jury.” Howerton, 358 N.C. at 460 , 597 S.E.2d at 687 (citing Queen City Coach Co. v. Lee, 218 N.C. 320, 323 , 11 S.E.2d 341, 343 (1940) (stating that “[t]he competency, admissibility, and sufficiency of the evidence is a matter for the court to determine. [Its] credibility, probative force, and weight is a matter for the jury”)). “[A] trial court’s rul 2009In describing the manner in which these factors should be applied, the Supreme Court has emphasized the fundamental “distinction between the admissibility of evidence and its weight, the latter of which is a matter traditionally reserved for the jury.” Howerton, 358 N.C. at 460 , 597 S.E.2d at 687 (citing Queen City Coach Co. v. Lee, 218 N.C. 320, 323 , 11 S.E.2d 341, 343 (1940) (stating that “[t]he competency, admissibility, and sufficiency of the evidence is a matter for the court to determine. [Its] credibility, probative force, and weight is a matter for the jury”)). “[A] trial court’s rul | 1 | 2009–2009 |
General Electric Company v. Turner
green
2 sentences1990Electric Co. v. Turner, 275 N.C. 493 , 168 S.E.2d 385 (1960). 1990Electric Co. v. Turner, 275 N.C. 493 , 168 S.E.2d 385 (1960). | 1 | 1990–1990 |
State v. Oliver
green
2 sentences1986State v. Oliver, 309 N.C. at 335 , 307 S.E.2d at 312 . 1986State v. Oliver, 309 N.C. at 335 , 307 S.E.2d at 312 . | 1 | 1986–1986 |
State v. Lynch
green
2 sentences1985He contends that permitting the tape and the transcript to be used in this manner was error because the tape had not been authenticated, as State v. Lynch, 279 N.C. 1 , 181 S.E. 2d 561 (1971) and State v. Shook, 55 N.C. 1985He contends that permitting the tape and the transcript to be used in this manner was error because the tape had not been authenticated, as State v. Lynch, 279 N.C. 1 , 181 S.E. 2d 561 (1971) and State v. Shook, 55 N.C. | 1 | 1985–1985 |
State v. Shook
green
2 sentences1985He contends that permitting the tape and the transcript to be used in this manner was error because the tape had not been authenticated, as State v. Lynch, 279 N.C. 1 , 181 S.E. 2d 561 (1971) and State v. Shook, 55 N.C. 1985App. 364 , 285 S.E. 2d 328 (1982) require. | 1 | 1985–1985 |
State v. Rhodes
green
2 sentences1983Id. at 24-28 , 224 S.E. 2d at 636-38 . 1983Id. at 24-28 , 224 S.E. 2d at 636-38 . | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Parrish v. . R. R.
green
2 sentences1958“It is necessary, in stating a cause of action, to set forth the duty which the defendant owed the plaintiff, as well as the manner in which the violation of that duty proximately contributed to the plaintiff’s injury.” Parrish v. R.R., 221 N.C. 292 , 20 S.E. 2d 299 . 1958“It is necessary, in stating a cause of action, to set forth the duty which the defendant owed the plaintiff, as well as the manner in which the violation of that duty proximately contributed to the plaintiff’s injury.” Parrish v. R.R., 221 N.C. 292 , 20 S.E. 2d 299 . | 1 | 1958–1958 |
Essick v. City of Lexington
green
2 sentences1958Plaintiff asserts in her brief that the allegations in the complaint in Essick v. Lexington, 232 N.C. 200 , 60 S.E. 2d 106 , are similar to the allegations in the instant case, and the Court there overruled the demurrer. 1958Plaintiff asserts in her brief that the allegations in the complaint in Essick v. Lexington, 232 N.C. 200 , 60 S.E. 2d 106 , are similar to the allegations in the instant case, and the Court there overruled the demurrer. | 1 | 1958–1958 |
Holmes Electric Co. v. Carolina Power & Light Co.
neutral
2 sentences1956See G.S. 1-184; G.S. 1-188; G.S. 1-513, and Electric Co. v. Light Co., 197 N.C. 766 , 150 S.E. 621 . 1956See G.S. 1-184; G.S. 1-188; G.S. 1-513, and Electric Co. v. Light Co., 197 N.C. 766 , 150 S.E. 621 . | 1 | 1956–1956 |
State v. . Moore
green
2 sentences1953It was said in S. v. Taylor, 236 N.C. 130 , 71 S.E. 2d 924 , that “the use of the word ‘may’ instead of ‘should’ in this excerpt from the charge is not prejudicial.” See also S. v. Moore, 185 N.C. 637 , 116 S.E. 161 . 1953It was said in S. v. Taylor, 236 N.C. 130 , 71 S.E. 2d 924 , that “the use of the word ‘may’ instead of ‘should’ in this excerpt from the charge is not prejudicial.” See also S. v. Moore, 185 N.C. 637 , 116 S.E. 161 . | 1 | 1953–1953 |
| State v. Taylor neutral | 1 | 1953–1953 |
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.