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.
18 North Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1989–2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Portergreen2 sentences2022See [State v.] Bonnett, 348 N.C. [417,] 433, 502 S.E.2d [563,] 574 [1998]; State v. Porter, 326 N.C. 489, 498 , 391 S.E.2d 144, 151 (1990). 2022See [State v.] Bonnett, 348 N.C. [417,] 433, 502 S.E.2d [563,] 574 [1998]; State v. Porter, 326 N.C. 489, 498 , 391 S.E.2d 144, 151 (1990). | 5 | 5 |
State v. Bonnettgreen2 sentences2020See Bonnett, 348 N.C. at 433 , 502 S.E.2d at 574 ; State v. Porter, 326 N.C. 489, 498 , 391 S.E.2d 144, 151 (1990). 2020See Bonnett, 348 N.C. at 433 , 502 S.E.2d at 574 ; State v. Porter, 326 N.C. 489, 498 , 391 S.E.2d 144, 151 (1990). | 3 | 3 |
State v. Barnesgreen2 sentences2004In Colfield, this Court held that the challenging attorney’s explanations need not ‘rise to the level justifying a challenge for cause,’ and need not be ‘persuasive, or even plausible.’ Barnes, 345 N.C. at 209 , 481 S.E.2d at 57 . 1998Defense counsel’s explanations need not “rise to the level justifying a challenge for cause,” and need not be “persuasive, or even plausible.” Barnes, 345 N.C. at 209 , 481 S.E.2d at 57 . | 1 | 4 |
State v. Cofieldgreen2 sentences2011The prosecutor’s explanations, however, “need not ‘rise to the level justifying a challenge for cause,’ and need not be ‘persuasive, or even plausible.’ ” Cofield, 129 N.C. 2010The State’s explanation “need not ‘rise to the level justifying a challenge for cause,’ and need not be ‘persuasive, or even plausible.’ In fact, the challenges may be based on . . . counsel’s ‘legitimate hunches ....’” Cofield, 129 N.C. | 1 | 3 |
State v. Golphingreen2 sentences2018Moreover, unless a discriminatory intent is inherent in the prosecutor's explanation, the reason offered will be deemed race neutral. *403 Golphin , 352 N.C. at 426 , 533 S.E.2d at 211 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). 2018Moreover, unless a discriminatory intent is inherent in the prosecutor's explanation, the reason offered will be deemed race neutral. *403 Golphin , 352 N.C. at 426 , 533 S.E.2d at 211 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Petersongreen2 sentences2004In fact, the challenges may be based on [the challenging attorney’s] ‘legitimate hunches and past experience.’ Id. [Counsel] must, however, articulate ‘legitimate race-neutral reasons that are clear, reasonably specific, and related to the particular case to be tried.’ State v. Peterson, 344 N.C. 172, 176 , 472 S.E.2d 730, 732 (1996). ‘Unless a discriminatory intent is inherent in [the challenging attorney’s] explanation, the reason offered will be deemed race neutral at this secondary stage of the inquiry.’ Hernandez, 500 U.S. at 360 . 2004In fact, the challenges may be based on [the challenging attorney’s] ‘legitimate hunches and past experience.’ Id. [Counsel] must, however, articulate ‘legitimate race-neutral reasons that are clear, reasonably specific, and related to the particular case to be tried.’ State v. Peterson, 344 N.C. 172, 176 , 472 S.E.2d 730, 732 (1996). ‘Unless a discriminatory intent is inherent in [the challenging attorney’s] explanation, the reason offered will be deemed race neutral at this secondary stage of the inquiry.’ Hernandez, 500 U.S. at 360 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Whitegreen2 sentences2003State v. White, 349 N.C. 535, 551 , 508 S.E.2d 253, 264 (1998), cert. denied, 527 U.S. 1026 , 144 L. 2003State v. White, 349 N.C. 535, 551 , 508 S.E.2d 253, 264 (1998), cert. denied, 527 U.S. 1026 , 144 L. | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Batson v. Kentucky
green
2 sentences1996Batson, 476 U.S. at 97 , 90 L. 1989“The prosecution’s explanation need not rise to the level of justifying a challenge for cause.” Id. | 5 | 1989–1996 |
State v. Hobbs
green
1 sentence2026“The State’s explanation must be clear and reasonably specific, but does not have to rise to the level of justifying a challenge for cause.” Id. (citations omitted). | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Hernandez v. New York
green
1 sentence2004In fact, the challenges may be based on [the challenging attorney’s] ‘legitimate hunches and past experience.’ Id. [Counsel] must, however, articulate ‘legitimate race-neutral reasons that are clear, reasonably specific, and related to the particular case to be tried.’ State v. Peterson, 344 N.C. 172, 176 , 472 S.E.2d 730, 732 (1996). ‘Unless a discriminatory intent is inherent in [the challenging attorney’s] explanation, the reason offered will be deemed race neutral at this secondary stage of the inquiry.’ Hernandez, 500 U.S. at 360 . | 1 | 2004–2004 |
White v. North Carolina
green
1 sentence2003State v. White, 349 N.C. 535, 551 , 508 S.E.2d 253, 264 (1998), cert. denied, 527 U.S. 1026 , 144 L. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Lowery v. Greiner
green
1 sentence2003State v. White, 349 N.C. 535, 551 , 508 S.E.2d 253, 264 (1998), cert. denied, 527 U.S. 1026 , 144 L. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
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.