18 North Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1981–2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
Mathews v. Eldridgegreen2 sentences2026These factors include 1) the private interest affected; 2) the probable value of additional or substitute safeguards; and 3) “the Government’s interest, including the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirement would entail.” Mathews, 424 U.S. at 335 . 2021IN RE C.G. 2021-NCCOA-344 GRIFFIN, J., dissenting and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirement would entail.” Matthews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 335 (1976). | 9 | 18 |
| 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. Oakes
green
2 sentences2021While this is not a consideration under our State Constitution, “[a] judge’s impartiality . . . implicates both federal and state constitutional due process principles.” Oakes, 209 N.C. 2021While this is not a consideration under our State Constitution, “[a] judge’s impartiality . . . implicates both federal and state constitutional due process principles.” Oakes, 209 N.C. | 2 | 2021–2021 |
Soles v. City of Raleigh Civil Service Commission
green
1 sentence1996Specifically, the Court looked at three factors: “[F]irst, the private interest that will be affected by the official action; second, the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards; and finally, the Government’s interest, including the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirement would entail.” *321 Id. (quoting Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 335 , 47 L.Ed. 2d 18, 33 (1976)). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
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.