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.
19 North Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1975–2021 6 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 |
|---|---|---|
Wetherington v. North Carolina Department of Public Safetygreen2 sentences2021NC DEP’T OF AGRIC. & CONSUMER SERVS. 2021-NCCOA-561 Opinion of the Court include: “the severity of the violation, the subject matter involved, the resulting harm, the [employee]’s work history, or discipline imposed in other cases involving similar violations.” Wetherington I, 368 N.C. at 592 , 780 S.E.2d at 548 . 2021NC DEP’T OF AGRIC. & CONSUMER SERVS. 2021-NCCOA-561 Opinion of the Court include: “the severity of the violation, the subject matter involved, the resulting harm, the [employee]’s work history, or discipline imposed in other cases involving similar violations.” Wetherington I, 368 N.C. at 592 , 780 S.E.2d at 548 . | 3 | 8 |
State v. Goldergreen2 sentences2020See Golder, 257 N.C. 2020See Golder, 257 N.C. | 2 | 2 |
Dogwood Development & Management Co. LLC v. White Oak Transport Co.green2 sentences2010To determine the severity of the rule violation, this Court is to consider: “[(1)] whether and to what extent the noncompliance impairs the court’s task of review[,] [(2)] ... whether and to what extent review on the merits would frustrate the adversarial process . . . [, and (3)] [t]he court may also consider the number of rules violated[.]” Id. at 200 , 657 S.E.2d at 366-67 (citations omitted). 2010To determine the severity of the rule violation, this Court is to consider: “[(1)] whether and to what extent the noncompliance impairs the court’s task of review[,] [(2)] ... whether and to what extent review on the merits would frustrate the adversarial process . . . [, and (3)] [t]he court may also consider the number of rules violated[.]” Id. at 200 , 657 S.E.2d at 366-67 (citations omitted). | 1 | 3 |
North Carolina Department of Environment & Natural Resources v. Carrollgreen2 sentences2016We emphasize that consideration of these factors is an appropriate and *209 necessary component of a decision to impose discipline upon a career State employee[.] Wetherington , --- N.C. at ----, 780 S.E.2d at 548 (quoting Carroll , 358 N.C. at 669 , 599 S.E.2d at 900-901 (internal quotation omitted)) (emphasis added). 2016We emphasize that consideration of these factors is an appropriate and *209 necessary component of a decision to impose discipline upon a career State employee[.] Wetherington , --- N.C. at ----, 780 S.E.2d at 548 (quoting Carroll , 358 N.C. at 669 , 599 S.E.2d at 900-901 (internal quotation omitted)) (emphasis added). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Beazell v. Ohio
green
2 sentences2020RAMSEUR Opinion of the Court Rather, by retroactively eliminating the RJA’s substantive claim and its accompanying relief, the RJA Repeal increases the severity of the standard of punishment attached to the crime of first-degree murder and deprives defendant of a defense to the “nature or amount of the punishment imposed for its commission.” Collins, 497 U.S. at 50 (quoting Beazell, 269 U.S. at 169–70). 2020RAMSEUR Opinion of the Court Rather, by retroactively eliminating the RJA’s substantive claim and its accompanying relief, the RJA Repeal increases the severity of the standard of punishment attached to the crime of first-degree murder and deprives defendant of a defense to the “nature or amount of the punishment imposed for its commission.” Collins, 497 U.S. at 50 (quoting Beazell, 269 U.S. at 169–70). | 3 | 2020–2020 |
Collins v. Youngblood
green
2 sentences2020RAMSEUR Opinion of the Court Rather, by retroactively eliminating the RJA’s substantive claim and its accompanying relief, the RJA Repeal increases the severity of the standard of punishment attached to the crime of first-degree murder and deprives defendant of a defense to the “nature or amount of the punishment imposed for its commission.” Collins, 497 U.S. at 50 (quoting Beazell, 269 U.S. at 169–70). 2020RAMSEUR Opinion of the Court Rather, by retroactively eliminating the RJA’s substantive claim and its accompanying relief, the RJA Repeal increases the severity of the standard of punishment attached to the crime of first-degree murder and deprives defendant of a defense to the “nature or amount of the punishment imposed for its commission.” Collins, 497 U.S. at 50 (quoting Beazell, 269 U.S. at 169–70). | 3 | 2020–2020 |
United States v. Goodwin
green
2 sentences2021Indeed, the Court in Goodwin reaffirmed the long-standing principle that, “[g]iven the severity of such a presumption . . . the Court has done so only in cases in which a reasonable likelihood of vindictiveness exists.” Id. at 373 . 2021Indeed, the Court in Goodwin reaffirmed the long-standing principle that, “[g]iven the severity of such a presumption . . . the Court has done so only in cases in which a reasonable likelihood of vindictiveness exists.” Id. at 373 . | 2 | 2021–2021 |
Conley Ex Rel. Conley v. Pearce-Young-Angel Co.
green
2 sentences1975Aldridge v. Hasty, 240 N.C. 353 , 82 S.E.2d 331 ; Conley v. Pierce-Young-Angel Co., 224 N.C. 211 , 29 S.E.2d 740 . 1975Aldridge v. Hasty, 240 N.C. 353 , 82 S.E.2d 331 ; Conley v. Pierce-Young-Angel Co., 224 N.C. 211 , 29 S.E.2d 740 . | 1 | 1975–1975 |
Aldridge Ex Rel. Aldridge v. Hasty
green
2 sentences1975Aldridge v. Hasty, 240 N.C. 353 , 82 S.E.2d 331 ; Conley v. Pierce-Young-Angel Co., 224 N.C. 211 , 29 S.E.2d 740 . 1975Aldridge v. Hasty, 240 N.C. 353 , 82 S.E.2d 331 ; Conley v. Pierce-Young-Angel Co., 224 N.C. 211 , 29 S.E.2d 740 . | 1 | 1975–1975 |
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.