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 1918–2018 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Colquittgreen2 sentences2010People v. Mocaby, 378 Ill.App.3d 1095, 1100 , 318 Ill.Dec. 39 , 882 N.E.2d 1162, 1167 (2008); see also State v. Colquitt, 133 Wash.App. 789, 794 , 137 P.3d 892, 894 (2006) (overturning a conviction when the prosecutor offered as evidence that a law enforcement officer believed the substance at issue was cocaine and conducted a field test that was never verified by further laboratory testing). 2010App. Ct. 5th Dist. 2008) (holding that expert witness testimony identifying tablets as containing controlled substances based on comparing them “to pictures in a book” amounted to “conjecture” and “speculation]” and was not a “conclusive scientific analysis” on which the prosecution could rely to carry its burden of proof); State v. Colquitt, 137 P.3d 892, 894 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006) (overturning a conviction when the prosecutor offered as evidence that a law enforcement officer believed the substance at issue was cocaine and conducted a field test that was never verified by further laboratory t | 2 | 2 |
State Ex Rel. Utilities Commission v. Tidewater Natural Gas Co.green2 sentences1980In the present case the hearing officer expressly found in the recommended order which was affirmed by the Commission that the proceeding involved only “a small segment of the re spondents’ rate structure.” Thus, “the field of inquiry [was] limited to the comparatively narrow question of fair treatment to a group or to a class.” Utilities Commission v. Gas Co., 259 N.C. 558, 562 , 131 S.E. 2d 303, 306 (1963). 1980In the present case the hearing officer expressly found in the recommended order which was affirmed by the Commission that the proceeding involved only “a small segment of the re spondents’ rate structure.” Thus, “the field of inquiry [was] limited to the comparatively narrow question of fair treatment to a group or to a class.” Utilities Commission v. Gas Co., 259 N.C. 558, 562 , 131 S.E. 2d 303, 306 (1963). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Mobleygreen1 sentence2013See State v. Mobley, 206 N.C. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Mocabygreen2 sentences2010People v. Mocaby, 378 Ill.App.3d 1095, 1100 , 318 Ill.Dec. 39 , 882 N.E.2d 1162, 1167 (2008); see also State v. Colquitt, 133 Wash.App. 789, 794 , 137 P.3d 892, 894 (2006) (overturning a conviction when the prosecutor offered as evidence that a law enforcement officer believed the substance at issue was cocaine and conducted a field test that was never verified by further laboratory testing). 2010People v. Mocaby, 378 Ill.App.3d 1095, 1100 , 318 Ill.Dec. 39 , 882 N.E.2d 1162, 1167 (2008); see also State v. Colquitt, 133 Wash.App. 789, 794 , 137 P.3d 892, 894 (2006) (overturning a conviction when the prosecutor offered as evidence that a law enforcement officer believed the substance at issue was cocaine and conducted a field test that was never verified by further laboratory testing). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Colquittgreen2 sentences2010App. 3d 1095, 1100 , 882 N.E.2d 1162, 1167 (2008); see also State v. Colquitt, 133 Wash. App. 789, 794 , 137 P.3d 892, 894 (2006) (overturning a conviction when the prosecutor offered as evidence that a law enforcement officer believed the substance at issue was cocaine and conducted a field test that was never verified by further laboratory testing). 2010People v. Mocaby, 378 Ill.App.3d 1095, 1100 , 318 Ill.Dec. 39 , 882 N.E.2d 1162, 1167 (2008); see also State v. Colquitt, 133 Wash.App. 789, 794 , 137 P.3d 892, 894 (2006) (overturning a conviction when the prosecutor offered as evidence that a law enforcement officer believed the substance at issue was cocaine and conducted a field test that was never verified by further laboratory testing). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Jacobsen
green
2 sentences2018Id. at 111-12 , 104 S.Ct. at 1655 . 2018Id. at 111-12 , 104 S.Ct. at 1655 . | 1 | 2018–2018 |
State v. James
green
1 sentence2012App _, 715 S.E.2d 884 (2011), in which we held that a preliminary field test did not provide an adequate basis for identifying a particular substance as a controlled substance, that Special Agent Bayler’s identification of the substance in the combined mixture as cocaine was inadmissible. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
State v. McDay
neutral
2 sentences1980Certainly, the circumstances of this case make us mindful of Justice Seawell's statement in State v. McDay, 232 N.C. 388 , 61 S.E.2d 86 (1950): "Where the court below is in error as to the definition of an essential element of a crime, and one which completely diverts the attention of the jury into a different field of inquiry, there is little propriety in speculating whether the instruction given is more harmful, or on the other hand, more favorable to the defendant than the one which ought to have been given, since justice is not a gamble. 1980Certainly, the circumstances of this case make us mindful of Justice Seawell's statement in State v. McDay, 232 N.C. 388 , 61 S.E.2d 86 (1950): "Where the court below is in error as to the definition of an essential element of a crime, and one which completely diverts the attention of the jury into a different field of inquiry, there is little propriety in speculating whether the instruction given is more harmful, or on the other hand, more favorable to the defendant than the one which ought to have been given, since justice is not a gamble. | 1 | 1980–1980 |
State v. Morgan.
green
2 sentences1953Perhaps, as contended by the State, if the Court had omitted to define "gambling," and omitted the words he used in his charge "and received no benefit or service therefrom" and "having rendered no service or furnished nothing to the person who gave him the money," the charge might not contain prejudicial error under authority of State v. Morgan, 133 N.C. 743 , 45 S.E. 1033 ; and State v. Webster, 218 N.C. 692 , 12 S.E.2d 272 . 1953Perhaps, as contended by the State, if the Court had omitted to define "gambling," and omitted the words he used in his charge "and received no benefit or service therefrom" and "having rendered no service or furnished nothing to the person who gave him the money," the charge might not contain prejudicial error under authority of State v. Morgan, 133 N.C. 743 , 45 S.E. 1033 ; and State v. Webster, 218 N.C. 692 , 12 S.E.2d 272 . | 1 | 1953–1953 |
State v. . Webster
green
2 sentences1953Perhaps, as contended by the State, if the Court had omitted to define "gambling," and omitted the words he used in his charge "and received no benefit or service therefrom" and "having rendered no service or furnished nothing to the person who gave him the money," the charge might not contain prejudicial error under authority of State v. Morgan, 133 N.C. 743 , 45 S.E. 1033 ; and State v. Webster, 218 N.C. 692 , 12 S.E.2d 272 . 1953Perhaps, as contended by the State, if the Court had omitted to define "gambling," and omitted the words he used in his charge "and received no benefit or service therefrom" and "having rendered no service or furnished nothing to the person who gave him the money," the charge might not contain prejudicial error under authority of State v. Morgan, 133 N.C. 743 , 45 S.E. 1033 ; and State v. Webster, 218 N.C. 692 , 12 S.E.2d 272 . | 1 | 1953–1953 |
Troy & North Carolina Gold Mining Co. v. Snow Lumber Co.
green
1 sentence1918Gudger v. White , 141 N.C. 507 ; Triplett v. Williams , 149 N.C. 394 ; Beacon v. Amos , 161 N.C. 357 ; Brown v. Brown , 168 N.C. 4 ; Mining Co. v. Lumber Co. , 170 N.C. 273 . | 1 | 1918–1918 |
Brown v. . Brown
green
1 sentence1918Gudger v. White , 141 N.C. 507 ; Triplett v. Williams , 149 N.C. 394 ; Beacon v. Amos , 161 N.C. 357 ; Brown v. Brown , 168 N.C. 4 ; Mining Co. v. Lumber Co. , 170 N.C. 273 . | 1 | 1918–1918 |
Triplett v. . Williams
green
1 sentence1918Gudger v. White , 141 N.C. 507 ; Triplett v. Williams , 149 N.C. 394 ; Beacon v. Amos , 161 N.C. 357 ; Brown v. Brown , 168 N.C. 4 ; Mining Co. v. Lumber Co. , 170 N.C. 273 . | 1 | 1918–1918 |
Gudger v. White.
neutral
1 sentence1918Gudger v. White , 141 N.C. 507 ; Triplett v. Williams , 149 N.C. 394 ; Beacon v. Amos , 161 N.C. 357 ; Brown v. Brown , 168 N.C. 4 ; Mining Co. v. Lumber Co. , 170 N.C. 273 . | 1 | 1918–1918 |
Beacom v. . Amos
neutral
1 sentence1918Gudger v. White , 141 N.C. 507 ; Triplett v. Williams , 149 N.C. 394 ; Beacon v. Amos , 161 N.C. 357 ; Brown v. Brown , 168 N.C. 4 ; Mining Co. v. Lumber Co. , 170 N.C. 273 . | 1 | 1918–1918 |
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.