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.
10 North Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1851–2018 0 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 the Will of Jonesgreen2 sentences2014I respectfully dissent. “[The] standard of review of an appeal from summary judgment is de novo; such judgment is appropriate only when the record shows that ‘there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that any party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.’ ” In re Will of Jones, 362 N.C. 569, 573 , 669 S.E.2d 572, 576 (2008) (quoting Forbis v. Neal, 361 N.C. 519, 523-24 , 649 S.E.2d 382, 385 (2007)). 2014I respectfully dissent. “[The] standard of review of an appeal from summary judgment is de novo; such judgment is appropriate only when the record shows that ‘there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that any party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.’ ” In re Will of Jones, 362 N.C. 569, 573 , 669 S.E.2d 572, 576 (2008) (quoting Forbis v. Neal, 361 N.C. 519, 523-24 , 649 S.E.2d 382, 385 (2007)). | 1 | 1 |
Forbis v. Nealgreen2 sentences2014I respectfully dissent. “[The] standard of review of an appeal from summary judgment is de novo; such judgment is appropriate only when the record shows that ‘there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that any party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.’ ” In re Will of Jones, 362 N.C. 569, 573 , 669 S.E.2d 572, 576 (2008) (quoting Forbis v. Neal, 361 N.C. 519, 523-24 , 649 S.E.2d 382, 385 (2007)). 2014I respectfully dissent. “[The] standard of review of an appeal from summary judgment is de novo; such judgment is appropriate only when the record shows that ‘there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that any party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.’ ” In re Will of Jones, 362 N.C. 569, 573 , 669 S.E.2d 572, 576 (2008) (quoting Forbis v. Neal, 361 N.C. 519, 523-24 , 649 S.E.2d 382, 385 (2007)). | 1 | 1 |
Beck v. Alabamagreen2 sentences1986“Where one of the elements of the offense charged remains in doubt, but the defendant is plainly guilty of some offense, the jury is likely to resolve doubts in favor of conviction.” State v. Strickland, 307 N.C. at 286 , 298 S.E. 2d at 654 , quoting Beck v. Alabama, 447 U.S. 625, 635 , 65 L.Ed. 2d 392, 401 (1980). 1986“Where one of the elements of the offense charged remains in doubt, but the defendant is plainly guilty of some offense, the jury is likely to resolve doubts in favor of conviction.” State v. Strickland, 307 N.C. at 286 , 298 S.E. 2d at 654 , quoting Beck v. Alabama, 447 U.S. 625, 635 , 65 L.Ed. 2d 392, 401 (1980). | 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. Hernandez
green
1 sentence2018In order to warrant a new trial, a defendant must show that he was prejudiced by the alleged error; that is, that there exists “a reasonable possibility that had the error not been committed a different result would have been reached at the trial.” State v. Hernandez, 188 N.C. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Strickland
green
2 sentences1986“Where one of the elements of the offense charged remains in doubt, but the defendant is plainly guilty of some offense, the jury is likely to resolve doubts in favor of conviction.” State v. Strickland, 307 N.C. at 286 , 298 S.E. 2d at 654 , quoting Beck v. Alabama, 447 U.S. 625, 635 , 65 L.Ed. 2d 392, 401 (1980). 1986“Where one of the elements of the offense charged remains in doubt, but the defendant is plainly guilty of some offense, the jury is likely to resolve doubts in favor of conviction.” State v. Strickland, 307 N.C. at 286 , 298 S.E. 2d at 654 , quoting Beck v. Alabama, 447 U.S. 625, 635 , 65 L.Ed. 2d 392, 401 (1980). | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Belvin v. Raleigh Paper Co.
neutral
1 sentence1930In Wharton v. Moore, 84 N. C., 479 , Ashe, J., assigned as the probable reason for enacting section 710 the admitted principle that the right to betterments is not conceded to mortgagors, and this statement of the law was approved in Belvin v. Raleigh Paper Co., 123 N. C., 138, 143 . | 1 | 1930–1930 |
Wharton v. . Moore
green
1 sentence1930In Wharton v. Moore, 84 N. C., 479 , Ashe, J., assigned as the probable reason for enacting section 710 the admitted principle that the right to betterments is not conceded to mortgagors, and this statement of the law was approved in Belvin v. Raleigh Paper Co., 123 N. C., 138, 143 . | 1 | 1930–1930 |
Wilson v. . Leary
green
1 sentence1913And if in our case tbe State bad not moved, and should never move, in the matter, there could bé no dissolution.” In Malone v. Toledo, 28 Ohio State, 655 , the Court held, in an able and exhaustive opinion: “Whatever the estate is, or however denominated, whether fee or easement, as to all property appropriated under the exercise of the law of eminent domain, we think that the real estate so appropriated for one p articular public use may by legislative authority be applied to another public use, and this is not necessarily an abandonment, nor is it a forfeiture of the public interest.” In Str | 1 | 1913–1913 |
Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fé Railroad v. Roach
neutral
1 sentence1909In Fetter on Carriers, vol. 2, sec. 625, we find it stated as an admitted principle that “A connecting carrier is not liable for a passenger’s baggage beyond its own line, in the absence of any showing that the carriers concerned in the transaction are partners, either inter se or as to third persons.” See, also, Railroad v. Roach, 35 Kan., 740 ; Railroad v. Campbell, 36 Ohio St., 647 . | 1 | 1909–1909 |
State v. Castle
neutral
1 sentence1908State v. Castle, 133 N. C., 769 , is not like this case, though the admitted principle as therein stated is suffi *556 cient to sustain tbe charge in this case. | 1 | 1908–1908 |
Atlantic, Tennessee & Ohio Railroad v. Johnston
green
1 sentence1892Railroad v. Saunders, 3 Jones, 126 ; Railroad v. Johnston, 70 N. C., 348 ; Navigation Company v. Neal, 3 Hawks, 520 . | 1 | 1892–1892 |
State v. . Stroud
neutral
1 sentence1890It seems to be conceded that the cause of State v. McCauless, 9 Ired., 375 , is not in harmony with the principle announced in the opinion of the Court in this case, and it cannot be denied that the case of State v. Williams, 9 Ired., 150 , is equally irreconcilable with the construction now given by the Court to the case of State v. Stroud, 95 N. C., 626 . | 1 | 1890–1890 |
Dussuau v. Rilieux
green
1 sentence1851Lanfear v Sumner, 11 Mass. Rep. 110 , Thurst v Jenkins, 7 Martin, 318 , tend to the same conclusion. | 1 | 1851–1851 |
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.