10 North Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1965–2026 4 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 |
|---|---|---|
Harrington v. Richtergreen2 sentences2026JOHNSON Opinion of the Court under this reasonable probability standard “[t]he likelihood of a different result must be substantial, not just conceivable,” Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 112 , 178 L.Ed.2d 624 (2011), “a defendant need not show that counsel’s deficient conduct more likely than not altered the outcome in the case.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 693 . 2026JOHNSON Opinion of the Court under this reasonable probability standard “[t]he likelihood of a different result must be substantial, not just conceivable,” Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 112 , 178 L.Ed.2d 624 (2011), “a defendant need not show that counsel’s deficient conduct more likely than not altered the outcome in the case.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 693 . | 2 | 3 |
Snow v. Duke Power Co.green2 sentences2020See Snow v. Duke Power Co., 297 N.C. 591, 597 , 256 S.E.2d 227 , 231–32 (1979) ("[C]ircumstantial evidence [may be] sufficient to take the case out of the realm of conjecture and into the field of legitimate inference from established facts."). -10- SAVINO V. 2020See Snow v. Duke Power Co., 297 N.C. 591, 597 , 256 S.E.2d 227 , 231–32 (1979) ("[C]ircumstantial evidence [may be] sufficient to take the case out of the realm of conjecture and into the field of legitimate inference from established facts."). -10- SAVINO V. | 2 | 2 |
Wiggins v. Smith, Wardengreen1 sentence2024However, the defendant does need to demonstrate that “at least one juror would have struck a different balance.” Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510, 537 (2003) (citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Morgangreen1 sentence1994After doing so, if we conclude that there is not a reasonable probability that the error committed caused the jury “to reach a different verdict than it would have reached otherwise,” id. at 40, 340 S.E.2d at 84, defendant is not entitled to relief. | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Strickland v. Washington
green
2 sentences2026JOHNSON Opinion of the Court under this reasonable probability standard “[t]he likelihood of a different result must be substantial, not just conceivable,” Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 112 , 178 L.Ed.2d 624 (2011), “a defendant need not show that counsel’s deficient conduct more likely than not altered the outcome in the case.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 693 . 2021Under the reasonable probability standard, “a defendant need not show that counsel’s deficient conduct more likely than not altered the outcome in the case.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 693 , 80 L. | 5 | 2020–2026 |
Johnson v. Heath
green
2 sentences1965Johnson v. Heath, 240 N.C. 255 , 81 S.E. 2d 657 . 1965Johnson v. Heath, 240 N.C. 255 , 81 S.E. 2d 657 . | 1 | 1965–1965 |
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.