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.
12 North Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1985–2025 1 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. Cliftongreen2 sentences2016"The weighing of factors in aggravation and mitigation is within the sound discretion of the sentencing court, and will not be disturbed upon appeal absent a showing of an abuse of discretion." State v. Clifton , 125 N.C.App. 471 , 480, 481 S.E.2d 393 , 399, disc. review improvidently allowed , 347 N.C. 391 , 493 S.E.2d 56 (1997). 2016"The weighing of factors in aggravation and mitigation is within the sound discretion of the sentencing court, and will not be disturbed upon appeal absent a showing of an abuse of discretion." State v. Clifton , 125 N.C.App. 471 , 480, 481 S.E.2d 393 , 399, disc. review improvidently allowed , 347 N.C. 391 , 493 S.E.2d 56 (1997). | 1 | 2 |
DeWitt v. Eveready Battery Co., Inc.green2 sentences2003The plaintiff does not have to satisfy all these factors to create a circumstantial case, and if the trial court determines that the case may be submitted to the jury, “ ‘[i]n most cases, the weighing of these factors should be left to the finder of fact[.]’ ” Id. at 689-90 , 565 S.E.2d at 151 (citations omitted). 2003The plaintiff does not have to satisfy all these factors to create a circumstantial case, and if the trial court determines that the case may be submitted to the jury, “ ‘[i]n most cases, the weighing of these factors should be left to the finder of fact[.]’ ” Id. at 689-90 , 565 S.E.2d at 151 (citations omitted). | 1 | 2 |
Jones v. Mississippigreen1 sentence2025See Sims, slip op. at 20 (quoting Jones, 141 S. Ct. at 1321 ) (“appellate courts will not reverse a discretionary sentence ‘merely because the sentencer could have said more about mitigating circumstances.’ ”) Moreover, although defendant disagrees with the weighing of these factors by the sentencing court, it is not the role of appellate courts to reweigh the evidence. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Butlergreen2 sentences2016See also State v. Butler , 341 N.C. 686 , 694, 462 S.E.2d 485 , 489-90 (1995) ("The balance struck by a sentencing court in weighing the aggravating and mitigating factors is a matter left to the sound discretion of the sentencing court and will not be disturbed on appeal absent a showing that the decision was manifestly unsupported by reason. 2016See also State v. Butler , 341 N.C. 686 , 694, 462 S.E.2d 485 , 489-90 (1995) ("The balance struck by a sentencing court in weighing the aggravating and mitigating factors is a matter left to the sound discretion of the sentencing court and will not be disturbed on appeal absent a showing that the decision was manifestly unsupported by reason. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Veazeygreen2 sentences2015Accordingly, we remand for further findings as to each of the . . . factors and a weighing of those factors to determine whether the checkpoint was reasonable.”); Veazey, 191 N.C. 2015App. at 194-95 , 662 S.E.2d at 692 (“[T]hese findings alone cannot support a conclusion that the checkpoint was reasonable because the trial court did not make adequate findings on the first two Brown prongs. . . . | 1 | 1 |
Kuisis v. Baldwin-Lima-Hamilton Corp.green2 sentences2002Penney Co., 427 Pa.Super. at 492 , 629 A.2d at 976 (quoting Kuisis v. Baldwin-Lima-Hamilton Corp., 457 Pa. 321, 336 , 319 A.2d 914, 923 (1974)). 2002Penney Co., 427 Pa.Super. at 492 , 629 A.2d at 976 (quoting Kuisis v. Baldwin-Lima-Hamilton Corp., 457 Pa. 321, 336 , 319 A.2d 914, 923 (1974)). | 1 | 1 |
Watson v. Sunbeam Corp.green1 sentence2002The plaintiff does not have to satisfy all these factors to create a circumstantial case, Watson v. Sunbeam Corp., 816 F.Supp. 384, 389 (D.Md. 1993), and if the trial court determines that the case may be submitted to the jury, "`[i]n most cases, the weighing of these factors should be left to the finder of fact,'" Woodin v. J.C. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Ahearngreen2 sentences1985State v. Ahearn, 307 N.C. 584, 597 , 300 S.E. 2d 689, 697 (1983). 1985State v. Ahearn, 307 N.C. 584, 597 , 300 S.E. 2d 689, 697 (1983). | 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. Clifton
neutral
2 sentences2016"The weighing of factors in aggravation and mitigation is within the sound discretion of the sentencing court, and will not be disturbed upon appeal absent a showing of an abuse of discretion." State v. Clifton , 125 N.C.App. 471 , 480, 481 S.E.2d 393 , 399, disc. review improvidently allowed , 347 N.C. 391 , 493 S.E.2d 56 (1997). 2016"The weighing of factors in aggravation and mitigation is within the sound discretion of the sentencing court, and will not be disturbed upon appeal absent a showing of an abuse of discretion." State v. Clifton , 125 N.C.App. 471 , 480, 481 S.E.2d 393 , 399, disc. review improvidently allowed , 347 N.C. 391 , 493 S.E.2d 56 (1997). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Jones v. Keller
green
1 sentence2012A careful reading of Jones indicates that the weighing analysis discussed by the Supreme Court rested upon determinations that (1) the liberty interest, if any, that had been created by the DOC’s provisions providing for “earned time credits” was relatively minimal; (2) the State’s interest in keeping inmates incarcerated until their release posed no danger to the public was compelling; and (3) the fact that the petitioners were eligible for parole, sufficed “to preserve [his] constitutional rights while still permitting the State to withhold application of [his] good time, gain time, and meri | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Dillingham v. North Carolina Department of Human Resources
green
2 sentences2006"Our Supreme Court has stated that the standard of proof in administrative matters is by the greater weight of the evidence." Dillingham, 132 N.C.App. at 712 , 513 S.E.2d at 828 . 2006"Our Supreme Court has stated that the standard of proof in administrative matters is by the greater weight of the evidence." Dillingham, 132 N.C.App. at 712 , 513 S.E.2d at 828 . | 1 | 2006–2006 |
United States v. Patane
green
1 sentence2004As Justice Kennedy stated, “In light of the important probative value of reliable physical evidence, it is doubtful that exclusion can be justified by a deterrence rationale sensitive to both law enforcement interests and a suspect’s rights during an in-custody interrogation.” Patane, - U.S. at -, 159 L. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Woodin v. JC Penney Co., Inc.
green
2 sentences2002Penney Co., 427 Pa.Super. at 492 , 629 A.2d at 976 (quoting Kuisis v. Baldwin-Lima-Hamilton Corp., 457 Pa. 321, 336 , 319 A.2d 914, 923 (1974)). 2002Penney Co., 427 Pa.Super. at 492 , 629 A.2d at 976 (quoting Kuisis v. Baldwin-Lima-Hamilton Corp., 457 Pa. 321, 336 , 319 A.2d 914, 923 (1974)). | 1 | 2002–2002 |
State v. Abee
green
1 sentence1997State v. Abee, 60 N.C. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
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.