17 North Carolina opinions name it 3 courts 1917–2025 7 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. Odomgreen2 sentences2020Under the more exacting standard of plain error review, we concluded that despite the acknowledged instructional error, the defendant had not met the burden of proving “that, after examination of the entire record, the error ‘had a probable impact on the jury’s finding that the defendant was guilty.’ ” Id. at 518 , 723 S.E.2d at 334 (quoting State v. Odom, 307 N.C. 655, 660 , 300 S.E.2d 375, 378 (1983)). 2020Under the more exacting standard of plain error review, we concluded that despite the acknowledged instructional error, the defendant had not met the burden of proving “that, after examination of the entire record, the error ‘had a probable impact on the jury’s finding that the defendant was guilty.’ ” Id. at 518 , 723 S.E.2d at 334 (quoting State v. Odom, 307 N.C. 655, 660 , 300 S.E.2d 375, 378 (1983)). | 3 | 3 |
Holden v. Hardygreen2 sentences2023See Holden v. Hardy, 169 U.S. 366, 392 , 42 L. 2023See Holden v. Hardy, 169 U.S. 366, 392 , 42 L. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Dalegreen2 sentences2022App. 497, 504 , 783 S.E.2d 222, 227 (2016) (“This notice pleading has replaced the use of ‘magic words’ and allows for a less exacting standard, so long as the defendant is properly advised of the charge against him or her.”). 2022App. 497, 504 , 783 S.E.2d 222, 227 (2016) (“This notice pleading has replaced the use of ‘magic words’ and allows for a less exacting standard, so long as the defendant is properly advised of the charge against him or her.”). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Maygreen2 sentences2025However, there is still a statutory rule with which we must contend. “[W]hen a trial court is alleged to have violated a mandatory statute, the issue is preserved as a matter of law, but when a trial court is alleged to have violated a permissive statute, we review for plain error if the issue has not been preserved.” State v. May, 368 N.C. 112, 119 , 772 S.E.2d 458, 463 (2015). 2025However, there is still a statutory rule with which we must contend. “[W]hen a trial court is alleged to have violated a mandatory statute, the issue is preserved as a matter of law, but when a trial court is alleged to have violated a permissive statute, we review for plain error if the issue has not been preserved.” State v. May, 368 N.C. 112, 119 , 772 S.E.2d 458, 463 (2015). | 1 | 1 |
Carson v. Giant Food, Inc.green1 sentence2016While such language may be sufficient to overcome the presumption under the North Carolina Act, see Epic Games, 785 S.E.2d at 143 (concluding similar language indicated that the parties sought to delegate issues of substantive arbitrability to the arbitrator), federal Fourth Circuit decisions suggest otherwise under the FAA, see, e.g., Carson v. Giant Food, Inc., 175 F.3d 325, 330 (4th Cir. 1999) (holding that “clauses requiring arbitration to resolve disputes ‘regarding the terms of this Agreement’ [or] concerning the interpretation of this Agreement . . . do not clearly and unmistakably comm | 1 | 1 |
Epic Games, Inc. v. Murphy-Johnsongreen2 sentences2016See Epic Games, 785 S.E.2d at 16 (observing that the FAA standard of “clear and unmistakable evidence” is “a more exacting standard than currently exists when interpreting arbitration clauses subject to the [North Carolina Act]”). {33} Under paragraph 19 of the Arbitration Agreement, the parties agreed that the “[t]he Arbitrator shall interpret and apply the provisions of this Arbitration Agreement,” thus suggesting that the parties voluntarily chose to delegate the decision regarding the arbitrability of claims and the scope of the arbitration to the Arbitrator. 2016While such language may be sufficient to overcome the presumption under the North Carolina Act, see Epic Games, 785 S.E.2d at 143 (concluding similar language indicated that the parties sought to delegate issues of substantive arbitrability to the arbitrator), federal Fourth Circuit decisions suggest otherwise under the FAA, see, e.g., Carson v. Giant Food, Inc., 175 F.3d 325, 330 (4th Cir. 1999) (holding that “clauses requiring arbitration to resolve disputes ‘regarding the terms of this Agreement’ [or] concerning the interpretation of this Agreement . . . do not clearly and unmistakably comm | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Milton L. McCaskillgreen2 sentences1992In deciding whether an assignment of error amounts to "plain error," we have traditionally employed an exacting standard. "[T]he plain error rule ... is always to be applied cautiously and only in the exceptional case where, after reviewing the entire record, it can be said the claimed error is `fundamental error, something so basic, so prejudicial, so lacking in its elements that justice cannot have been done,' or `where [the error] is grave error which amounts to a denial of a fundamental right of the accused,' or the error has ` "resulted in a miscarriage of justice or in the denial to appe 1992In deciding whether an assignment of error amounts to “plain error,” we have traditionally employed an exacting standard. “[T]he plain error rule ... is always to be applied cautiously and only in the exceptional case where, after reviewing the entire record, it can be said the claimed error is fundamental error, something so basic, so prejudicial, so lacking in its elements that justice cannot have been done,’ or ‘where [the error] is grave error which amounts to a denial of a fundamental right of the accused,’ or the error has ‘ “resulted in a miscarriage of justice or in the denial to appel | 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Lawrence
green
2 sentences2025Because this exacting test demands the near certainty of a different result, “the strength and volume of the evidence against the defendant plays a role in [our] . . . analysis.” Id. -9- STATE V. 2020Under the more exacting standard of plain error review, we concluded that despite the acknowledged instructional error, the defendant had not met the burden of proving “that, after examination of the entire record, the error ‘had a probable impact on the jury’s finding that the defendant was guilty.’ ” Id. at 518 , 723 S.E.2d at 334 (quoting State v. Odom, 307 N.C. 655, 660 , 300 S.E.2d 375, 378 (1983)). | 3 | 2020–2025 |
Woodson v. Rowland
green
2 sentences2020Id. at 340-41 , 407 S.E.2d at 228 . 2020Id. at 340-41 , 407 S.E.2d at 228 . | 2 | 2020–2020 |
Amy v. The Supervisors
green
2 sentences1917The same principle was also present in the case of Amy v. Barkholder , 78 U.S. 136 , sometimes cited in support of a more exacting rule of liability. 1917The same principle was also present in the ease of Amy v. Barkholder, 78 U. S., 136 , sometimes cited in support of a more exacting rule of liability. | 2 | 1917–1917 |
State v. Towe
green
1 sentence2024For example, in Towe, we rejected a Court of Appeals decision that held there was a “probable impact” because it was “highly plausible that the jury could have reached a different result.” 366 N.C. at 61–62. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Edwards v. Northwestern Bank
green
1 sentence2018Id. at 270, 250 S.E.2d at 658 . 64. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Witherspoon v. Illinois
green
2 sentences1970Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510 , 20 L. 1970Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510 , 20 L. | 1 | 1970–1970 |
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.