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.
17 North Carolina opinions name it 1 courts 1983–2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
In re D.H.green2 sentences2026Stat. § 7B-1110(a)] requires the trial court to ‘consider’ all six of the listed factors[ ]”; however, “the court must enter written findings in its order concerning only those factors that are relevant.” In re D.H., 232 N.C. 2025Stat. § 7B-1110(a)] requires the trial court to consider all six of the listed factors, and . . . any failure to do so would constitute an abuse of discretion.” In re D.H., 232 N.C. | 5 | 9 |
Wetherington v. North Carolina Department of Public Safetygreen2 sentences2020Those factors, sometimes referred to as the “Wetherington factors,” as articulated by the Supreme Court are “the severity of the violation, the subject matter involved, the resulting harm, the trooper’s work history, or discipline imposed in other cases involving similar violations.” Id. at 592 , 780 S.E.2d at 548 (emphasis added). 26. 2020Those factors, sometimes referred to as the “Wetherington factors,” as articulated by the Supreme Court are “the severity of the violation, the subject matter involved, the resulting harm, the trooper’s work history, or discipline imposed in other cases involving similar violations.” Id. at 592 , 780 S.E.2d at 548 (emphasis added). 26. | 2 | 2 |
Steele v. Steelegreen2 sentences1986See Steele v. Steele, 36 N.C. 1983See Steele v. Steele, 36 N.C. | 2 | 2 |
Wiggins v. Pelikan, Inc.green1 sentence2002See Wiggins v. Pelikan, Inc., 132 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 |
|---|---|---|
In re J.L.H.
green
1 sentence2019App. 217 , 220-21, 753 S.E.2d 732 , 735 (2014) (citing In re J.L.H. , 224 N.C. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Bailey v. United States
green
1 sentence2019The Wilson Court adopted the limitations from Bailey to circumscribe law enforcement’s authority to detain occupants, and the Court listed factors to be considered “to determine whether an occupant was detained within the immediate vicinity of the premises to be searched, including the lawful limit of the premises, whether the occupant was within the line of sight of his dwelling, the ease of reentry from the occupant’s location, and other relevant factors.” Id. (quoting Bailey, 568 U.S. at 201 ). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Wilson
green
1 sentence2019The Wilson Court adopted the limitations from Bailey to circumscribe law enforcement’s authority to detain occupants, and the Court listed factors to be considered “to determine whether an occupant was detained within the immediate vicinity of the premises to be searched, including the lawful limit of the premises, whether the occupant was within the line of sight of his dwelling, the ease of reentry from the occupant’s location, and other relevant factors.” Id. (quoting Bailey, 568 U.S. at 201 ). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
In Re DRF
green
1 sentence2017App. at 141 -42 , 693 S.E.2d at 238 -39 . "[T]he language of this statute requires the trial court to 'consider' all six of the listed factors, and ... any failure to do so would constitute an abuse of discretion." In re D.H. , 232 N.C. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
In Re Eades
green
1 sentence2010“This Court has held that use of the language ‘shall’ is a mandate to trial judges, and that failure to comply with the statutory mandate is reversible error.” In re Eades, 143 N.C. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Ramsey v. Norton
green
1 sentence2005App. 125 , 128, 306 S.E.2d 540 , 542 (referring to factors set forth in N.C.G.S. § 50-13.4(c)), disc. review denied, 309 N.C. 822 , 310 S.E.2d 351 (1983). | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Padgett v. Stutts
green
1 sentence2005App. 125 , 128, 306 S.E.2d 540 , 542 (referring to factors set forth in N.C.G.S. § 50-13.4(c)), disc. review denied, 309 N.C. 822 , 310 S.E.2d 351 (1983). | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Newman v. Newman
green
2 sentences2005In support of this argument, plaintiff cites Newman v. Newman, which states that "[n]ot only must the trial court hear evidence on each of the factors listed above, but the trial court must also substantiate its conclusions of law by making findings of specific facts on each of the listed factors." Newman, 64 N.C. 2005App. 125 , 128, 306 S.E.2d 540 , 542 (referring to factors set forth in N.C.G.S. § 50-13.4(c)), disc. review denied, 309 N.C. 822 , 310 S.E.2d 351 (1983). | 1 | 2005–2005 |
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.