11 North Carolina opinions name it 3 courts 1992–2026 2 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. McElrathgreen2 sentences2012Because the relevancy standard in criminal cases is “relatively lax,” “[a]ny evidence calculated to throw light upon the crime charged should be admitted by the trial court.” State v. McElrath, 322 N.C. 1, 13 , 366 S.E.2d 442, 449 (1988) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 2012Because the relevancy standard in criminal cases is “relatively lax,” “[a]ny evidence calculated to throw light upon the crime charged should be admitted by the trial court.” State v. McElrath, 322 N.C. 1, 13 , 366 S.E.2d 442, 449 (1988) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). | 2 | 3 |
Shellhorn v. Brad Ragan, Inc.green2 sentences2026“The relevancy test for discovery is not the same as the relevancy test for admissibility into evidence.” Shellhorn v. Brad Ragan, Inc., 38 N.C. 1992This Court in Shellhorn v. Brad Ragan, Inc., 38 N.C.App. 310 , 248 S.E.2d 103 , disc. review denied, 295 N.C. 735 , 249 S.E.2d 804 (1978), differentiated the relevancy test for discovery from the relevancy test for admissibility into evidence: "To be relevant for purposes of discovery," the Court stated, "the information need only be `reasonably calculated' to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence." Id. 38 N.C.App. at 314 , 248 S.E.2d at 106 . | 1 | 5 |
Willis v. Duke Power Co.green2 sentences2019Willis v. Duke Power Co., 291 N.C. 19, 34 , 229 S.E.2d 191, 200 (1976). 2019Willis v. Duke Power Co., 291 N.C. 19, 34 , 229 S.E.2d 191, 200 (1976). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Goodsongreen2 sentences1995Defendant begins by noting that “[e]vidence is relevant if it has any logical tendency to prove a fact in issue,” State v. Goodson, 313 N.C. 318, 320 , 327 S.E.2d 868, 869 (1985), and that the relevancy standard is relatively lax and particularly easy to satisfy in a criminal case, State v. McElrath, 322 N.C. 1, 13 , 366 S.E.2d 442, 449 (1988). 1995Defendant begins by noting that “[e]vidence is relevant if it has any logical tendency to prove a fact in issue,” State v. Goodson, 313 N.C. 318, 320 , 327 S.E.2d 868, 869 (1985), and that the relevancy standard is relatively lax and particularly easy to satisfy in a criminal case, State v. McElrath, 322 N.C. 1, 13 , 366 S.E.2d 442, 449 (1988). | 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. McNeill
green
1 sentence2023Due to this lack of dispute concerning defendants’ satisfaction of the first prong of the relevancy test for the admissibility of their proffered evidence, we focus on the test’s second prong in assessing the propriety of the trial court’s ruling regarding whether the evidence at issue was “inconsistent with the defendant’s guilt.” Id. -20- STATE V. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
State v. Miles
green
2 sentences2018In criminal cases, the relevancy standard has been termed "relatively lax" and thus "[a]ny evidence calculated to throw light upon the crime charged should be admitted by the trial court." State v. Miles , 222 N.C. 2018App. 593 , 607, 730 S.E.2d 816 , 827 (2012) (quoting State v. McElrath , 322 N.C. 1 , 13, 366 S.E.2d 442 , 449 (1988) ), aff'd per curiam , 366 N.C. 503 , 750 S.E.2d 833 (2013). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Miles
neutral
2 sentences2018App. 593 , 607, 730 S.E.2d 816 , 827 (2012) (quoting State v. McElrath , 322 N.C. 1 , 13, 366 S.E.2d 442 , 449 (1988) ), aff'd per curiam , 366 N.C. 503 , 750 S.E.2d 833 (2013). 2018App. 593 , 607, 730 S.E.2d 816 , 827 (2012) (quoting State v. McElrath , 322 N.C. 1 , 13, 366 S.E.2d 442 , 449 (1988) ), aff'd per curiam , 366 N.C. 503 , 750 S.E.2d 833 (2013). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Kronisch v. United States
green
1 sentence2000Although the destruction of evidence, standing alone, is insufficient to allow a party producing such evidence to support a summary judgment claim, such destruction “may push a claim that might not otherwise survive summary judgment over the line.” Kronisch, 150 F.3d at 128 . | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Shellhorn v. Brad Ragan, Inc.
neutral
2 sentences1992App. 310 , 248 S.E.2d 103 , disc. review denied, 295 N.C. 735 , 249 S.E.2d 804 (1978), differentiated the relevancy test for discovery from the relevancy test for admissibility into evidence: “To be relevant for purposes of discovery,” the Court stated, “the information need only be ‘reasonably calculated’ to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Id. at 314, 248 S.E.2d at 106 . 1992This Court in Shellhorn v. Brad Ragan, Inc., 38 N.C.App. 310 , 248 S.E.2d 103 , disc. review denied, 295 N.C. 735 , 249 S.E.2d 804 (1978), differentiated the relevancy test for discovery from the relevancy test for admissibility into evidence: "To be relevant for purposes of discovery," the Court stated, "the information need only be `reasonably calculated' to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence." Id. 38 N.C.App. at 314 , 248 S.E.2d at 106 . | 1 | 1992–1992 |
State v. Brooks
neutral
2 sentences1992This Court in Shellhorn v. Brad Ragan, Inc., 38 N.C.App. 310 , 248 S.E.2d 103 , disc. review denied, 295 N.C. 735 , 249 S.E.2d 804 (1978), differentiated the relevancy test for discovery from the relevancy test for admissibility into evidence: "To be relevant for purposes of discovery," the Court stated, "the information need only be `reasonably calculated' to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence." Id. 38 N.C.App. at 314 , 248 S.E.2d at 106 . 1992This Court in Shellhorn v. Brad Ragan, Inc., 38 N.C.App. 310 , 248 S.E.2d 103 , disc. review denied, 295 N.C. 735 , 249 S.E.2d 804 (1978), differentiated the relevancy test for discovery from the relevancy test for admissibility into evidence: "To be relevant for purposes of discovery," the Court stated, "the information need only be `reasonably calculated' to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence." Id. 38 N.C.App. at 314 , 248 S.E.2d at 106 . | 1 | 1992–1992 |
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.