11 North Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1984–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinezgreen2 sentences2013In evaluating the second part of the inquiry, the Supreme Court advanced the seven factors listed in Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, 372 U.S. 144, 168-69 , 9 L. 2013In evaluating the second part of the inquiry, the Supreme Court advanced the seven factors listed in Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, 372 U.S. 144, 168-69 , 9 L. | 4 | 4 |
State v. Hootsgreen2 sentences2020See State v. Hoots, 76 N.C. 2020See State v. Hoots, 76 N.C. | 2 | 2 |
Hudson v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2004The Hudson Court further established the following seven factors to be considered in assessing whether the punitive nature of the statute transforms the civil remedy into a criminal penalty: (1) whether the sanction involves an affirmative disability or restraint; (2) whether it has historically been regarded as a punishment; (3) whether it comes into play only on a finding of scienter; (4) whether its operation will promote the traditional aims of punishment — retribution and deterrence; (5) whether the *613 behavior to which it applies is already a crime; (6) whether any alternative purpose 2004The Hudson Court emphasized that no one factor is controlling, 522 U.S. at 101 , and cautioned that “only the clearest proof will suffice to override legislative intent and transform what has been denominated a civil remedy into a criminal penalty.” 552 U.S. at 100 (citations omitted). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Wall v. Colvard, Inc.
green
1 sentence2024Because conversion occurs when one party exercises a right of ownership over another party’s property and either alters that property or excludes the rightful owner of their rights in that property, Wall, 268 N.C. at 49 , the crux of Circle of Seven’s claim is the conversion of the Dodge truck by Mr. Bottoms. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Evans
green
1 sentence2013Ed. 2d 644, 660-61 (1963), as “useful guideposts[.]” Evans at 332 , 550 S.E.2d at 859 . | 1 | 2013–2013 |
State v. Dixon
green
2 sentences2010Id. at 251 , 130 S.E.2d at 334 . 2010Id. at 251 , 130 S.E.2d at 334 . | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Department of Revenue of Mont. v. Kurth Ranch
green
2 sentences2002Defendant also argues that the U.S. Supreme Court holding in Department of Revenue of Montana v. Kurth Ranch, 511 U.S. 767 , 128 L. 2002Defendant also argues that the U.S. Supreme Court holding in Department of Revenue of Montana v. Kurth Ranch, 511 U.S. 767 , 128 L. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
In Re the Will of Ball
green
2 sentences1984In re Will of Ball, 225 N.C. 91 , 33 S.E.2d 619 (1945). 1984In re Will of Ball, 225 N.C. 91 , 33 S.E.2d 619 (1945). | 1 | 1984–1984 |
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.