17 North Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1973–2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
Robinson Ex Rel. Robinson v. Life & Casualty Insurancegreen2 sentences1996The admissibility of a blood alcohol test “depends upon a showing of compliance with conditions as to relevancy in point of time, tracing and identification of specimen, accuracy of analysis, and qual *601 ification of the witness as an expert in the field.” Robinson v. Insurance Co., 255 N.C. 669, 672 , 122 S.E.2d 801, 803 (1961). 1996The admissibility of a blood alcohol test “depends upon a showing of compliance with conditions as to relevancy in point of time, tracing and identification of specimen, accuracy of analysis, and qual *601 ification of the witness as an expert in the field.” Robinson v. Insurance Co., 255 N.C. 669, 672 , 122 S.E.2d 801, 803 (1961). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Drdakgreen2 sentences2019"This evidence meets the requirements necessary to provide a proper foundation for the admission of the blood alcohol test results." Drdak , 330 N.C. at 592 , 411 S.E.2d at 607 -08 . 2019"This evidence meets the requirements necessary to provide a proper foundation for the admission of the blood alcohol test results." Drdak , 330 N.C. at 592 , 411 S.E.2d at 607 -08 . | 1 | 2 |
State v. Lockleargreen2 sentences2019When “the State seeks to introduce forensic analyses, ‘[a]bsent a showing that the analysts [are] unavailable to testify at trial and that petitioner had a prior opportunity to cross-examine them’ such evidence is inadmissible under Crawford.” State v. Locklear, 363 N.C. 438, 452 , 681 S.E.2d 293, 305 (2009) (quoting Melendez-Diaz, 557 U.S. at 311 ). 2019When “the State seeks to introduce forensic analyses, ‘[a]bsent a showing that the analysts [are] unavailable to testify at trial and that petitioner had a prior opportunity to cross-examine them’ such evidence is inadmissible under Crawford.” State v. Locklear, 363 N.C. 438, 452 , 681 S.E.2d 293, 305 (2009) (quoting Melendez-Diaz, 557 U.S. at 311 ). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Harringtongreen1 sentence2009State v. Harrington, 78 N.C.App. 39, 46 , 336 S.E.2d 852, 856 (1985) ("the statutory BAC is not a sine qua non of DWI") (citing State v. Sigmon, 74 N.C.App. 479 , 328 S.E.2d 843 (1985) (noting that a BAC of less than the statutory limit does not create a presumption that defendant is not impaired)). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Harringtongreen1 sentence2009State v. Harrington, 78 N.C.App. 39, 46 , 336 S.E.2d 852, 856 (1985) ("the statutory BAC is not a sine qua non of DWI") (citing State v. Sigmon, 74 N.C.App. 479 , 328 S.E.2d 843 (1985) (noting that a BAC of less than the statutory limit does not create a presumption that defendant is not impaired)). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Catoegreen1 sentence1986See State v. Catoe, 78 N.C. | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Powers v. Powers
green
2 sentences2022Powers v. Powers 130 N.C. 2022Powers v. Powers 130 N.C. | 2 | 2022–2022 |
Bullcoming v. New Mexico
green
1 sentence2026Bullcoming, 564 U.S. at 664–65. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts
green
1 sentence2019When “the State seeks to introduce forensic analyses, ‘[a]bsent a showing that the analysts [are] unavailable to testify at trial and that petitioner had a prior opportunity to cross-examine them’ such evidence is inadmissible under Crawford.” State v. Locklear, 363 N.C. 438, 452 , 681 S.E.2d 293, 305 (2009) (quoting Melendez-Diaz, 557 U.S. at 311 ). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Hollingsworth
green
2 sentences2017The Court of Appeals observed that “[N.C.]G.S. § 20-16.2 operates to imply consent by an unconscious driver to a blood alcohol test.” Id. at 41, 334 S.E.2d at 467 . 2017The Court of Appeals observed that “[N.C.JG.S. § 20-16.2 operates to imply consent by an unconscious driver to a blood alcohol test.” Id. at 41, 334 S.E.2d at 467 . | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Oldham
neutral
1 sentence2011App. 172 , 177 S.E.2d 769 (1970), defendant contended that it was error to admit the result of a blood alcohol test, indicating that defendant had a blood alcohol content of .16, administered approximately two hours and twelve minutes after he was involved in an automobile accident. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
State v. Sigmon
green
2 sentences2009State v. Harrington, 78 N.C.App. 39, 46 , 336 S.E.2d 852, 856 (1985) ("the statutory BAC is not a sine qua non of DWI") (citing State v. Sigmon, 74 N.C.App. 479 , 328 S.E.2d 843 (1985) (noting that a BAC of less than the statutory limit does not create a presumption that defendant is not impaired)). 2009State v. Harrington, 78 N.C.App. 39, 46 , 336 S.E.2d 852, 856 (1985) ("the statutory BAC is not a sine qua non of DWI") (citing State v. Sigmon, 74 N.C.App. 479 , 328 S.E.2d 843 (1985) (noting that a BAC of less than the statutory limit does not create a presumption that defendant is not impaired)). | 1 | 2009–2009 |
State v. O'ROURKE
green
2 sentences1996Id. at 439 , 442 S.E.2d at 139 . 1996Id. at 439 , 442 S.E.2d at 139 . | 1 | 1996–1996 |
State v. Grier
green
2 sentences1996While our Courts do not require the person who draws the blood to testify in every case in order to establish a proper foundation, (See State v. Grier, 307 N.C. 628, 632 , 300 S.E.2d 351, 354 , (1983) appeal after remand, 314 N.C. 59 , 331 S.E.2d 669 (1985)) under these facts, other inconsistencies with these critical test results warranted a more thorough development of the chain of custody of plaintiff’s blood sample. 1996While our Courts do not require the person who draws the blood to testify in every case in order to establish a proper foundation, (See State v. Grier, 307 N.C. 628, 632 , 300 S.E.2d 351, 354 , (1983) appeal after remand, 314 N.C. 59 , 331 S.E.2d 669 (1985)) under these facts, other inconsistencies with these critical test results warranted a more thorough development of the chain of custody of plaintiff’s blood sample. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
State v. Grier
green
2 sentences1996While our Courts do not require the person who draws the blood to testify in every case in order to establish a proper foundation, (See State v. Grier, 307 N.C. 628, 632 , 300 S.E.2d 351, 354 , (1983) appeal after remand, 314 N.C. 59 , 331 S.E.2d 669 (1985)) under these facts, other inconsistencies with these critical test results warranted a more thorough development of the chain of custody of plaintiff’s blood sample. 1996While our Courts do not require the person who draws the blood to testify in every case in order to establish a proper foundation, (See State v. Grier, 307 N.C. 628, 632 , 300 S.E.2d 351, 354 , (1983) appeal after remand, 314 N.C. 59 , 331 S.E.2d 669 (1985)) under these facts, other inconsistencies with these critical test results warranted a more thorough development of the chain of custody of plaintiff’s blood sample. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
State v. Garcia-Lorenzo
green
1 sentence1995Garcia-Lorenzo, 110 N.C. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Schmerber v. California
green
2 sentences1985Other jurisdictions have begun their analysis of this question by referring to Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 , 86 S.Ct. 1826 , 16 L.Ed. 2d 908 (1966). 1985Other jurisdictions have begun their analysis of this question by referring to Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 , 86 S.Ct. 1826 , 16 L.Ed. 2d 908 (1966). | 1 | 1985–1985 |
State v. Powell
green
2 sentences1976State v. Powell, 279 N.C. 608 , 184 S.E. 2d 243 (1971) ; State v. Caviness, 7 N.C. 1976State v. Powell, 279 N.C. 608 , 184 S.E. 2d 243 (1971) ; State v. Caviness, 7 N.C. | 1 | 1976–1976 |
State v. Caviness
neutral
1 sentence1976State v. Powell, 279 N.C. 608 , 184 S.E. 2d 243 (1971) ; State v. Caviness, 7 N.C. | 1 | 1976–1976 |
McNeil v. Williams
green
1 sentence1973Osborne v. Ice Co., 249 N.C. 387 , 106 S.E. 2d 573 ; McNeil v. Williams, 16 N.C. | 1 | 1973–1973 |
Osborne v. Colonial Ice Company
neutral
2 sentences1973Osborne v. Ice Co., 249 N.C. 387 , 106 S.E. 2d 573 ; McNeil v. Williams, 16 N.C. 1973Osborne v. Ice Co., 249 N.C. 387 , 106 S.E. 2d 573 ; McNeil v. Williams, 16 N.C. | 1 | 1973–1973 |
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.