affirmance rule (North Carolina) · Go Syfert
← North Carolina issues

affirmance rule in North Carolina

9 North Carolina opinions name it 1 courts 1895–1994 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.

Followed or applied (1)

CaseFollowedCited
State v. . Perrygreen
nc · 1936 · cited in 1 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 1994–1994
2 sentences

1994“This Court has repeatedly held that the right to confront is an affirmance of the rule of the common law that in criminal trials by jury the witness must not only be present, but must be subject to cross-examination under oath.” State v. Perry, 210 N.C. 796, 797 , 188 S.E. 639, 640 (1936).

1994“This Court has repeatedly held that the right to confront is an affirmance of the rule of the common law that in criminal trials by jury the witness must not only be present, but must be subject to cross-examination under oath.” State v. Perry, 210 N.C. 796, 797 , 188 S.E. 639, 640 (1936).

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in North Carolina. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (8)

CaseCitedYears
State v. . Thomas neutral
nc · 1870
2 sentences

1936S. v. Thomas , 64 N.C. 74 ; S. v. Behrman , 114 N.C. 797 ; S. v. Dowdy , 145 N.C. 432 ; S. v. Dixon , 185 N.C. 727 ; S. v. Hightower , 187 N.C. 300 ; S. v. Breece , 206 N.C. 92 ; N.C.

1936S. v. Thomas, 64 N. C., 74 ; S. v. Behrman, 114 N. C., 797 ; S. v. Dowdy, 145 N. C., 432 ; S. v. Dixon, 185 N. C., 727 ; S. v. Hightower, 187 N. C., 300 ; S. v. Breece, 206 N. C., 92 ; N. C.

61923–1936
State v. . Breece neutral
nc · 1934
2 sentences

1936S. v. Thomas , 64 N.C. 74 ; S. v. Behrman , 114 N.C. 797 ; S. v. Dowdy , 145 N.C. 432 ; S. v. Dixon , 185 N.C. 727 ; S. v. Hightower , 187 N.C. 300 ; S. v. Breece , 206 N.C. 92 ; N.C.

1936S. v. Thomas, 64 N. C., 74 ; S. v. Behrman, 114 N. C., 797 ; S. v. Dowdy, 145 N. C., 432 ; S. v. Dixon, 185 N. C., 727 ; S. v. Hightower, 187 N. C., 300 ; S. v. Breece, 206 N. C., 92 ; N. C.

21936–1936
State v. . Dowdy green
nc · 1907
2 sentences

1936S. v. Thomas , 64 N.C. 74 ; S. v. Behrman , 114 N.C. 797 ; S. v. Dowdy , 145 N.C. 432 ; S. v. Dixon , 185 N.C. 727 ; S. v. Hightower , 187 N.C. 300 ; S. v. Breece , 206 N.C. 92 ; N.C.

1936S. v. Thomas, 64 N. C., 74 ; S. v. Behrman, 114 N. C., 797 ; S. v. Dowdy, 145 N. C., 432 ; S. v. Dixon, 185 N. C., 727 ; S. v. Hightower, 187 N. C., 300 ; S. v. Breece, 206 N. C., 92 ; N. C.

21936–1936
State v. . Behrman green
· 1894
2 sentences

1936S. v. Thomas , 64 N.C. 74 ; S. v. Behrman , 114 N.C. 797 ; S. v. Dowdy , 145 N.C. 432 ; S. v. Dixon , 185 N.C. 727 ; S. v. Hightower , 187 N.C. 300 ; S. v. Breece , 206 N.C. 92 ; N.C.

1936S. v. Thomas, 64 N. C., 74 ; S. v. Behrman, 114 N. C., 797 ; S. v. Dowdy, 145 N. C., 432 ; S. v. Dixon, 185 N. C., 727 ; S. v. Hightower, 187 N. C., 300 ; S. v. Breece, 206 N. C., 92 ; N. C.

21936–1936
State v. . Dixon green
nc · 1923
2 sentences

1936S. v. Thomas , 64 N.C. 74 ; S. v. Behrman , 114 N.C. 797 ; S. v. Dowdy , 145 N.C. 432 ; S. v. Dixon , 185 N.C. 727 ; S. v. Hightower , 187 N.C. 300 ; S. v. Breece , 206 N.C. 92 ; N.C.

1936S. v. Thomas, 64 N. C., 74 ; S. v. Behrman, 114 N. C., 797 ; S. v. Dowdy, 145 N. C., 432 ; S. v. Dixon, 185 N. C., 727 ; S. v. Hightower, 187 N. C., 300 ; S. v. Breece, 206 N. C., 92 ; N. C.

21936–1936
State v. . Hightower green
nc · 1924
2 sentences

1936S. v. Thomas , 64 N.C. 74 ; S. v. Behrman , 114 N.C. 797 ; S. v. Dowdy , 145 N.C. 432 ; S. v. Dixon , 185 N.C. 727 ; S. v. Hightower , 187 N.C. 300 ; S. v. Breece , 206 N.C. 92 ; N.C.

1936S. v. Thomas, 64 N. C., 74 ; S. v. Behrman, 114 N. C., 797 ; S. v. Dowdy, 145 N. C., 432 ; S. v. Dixon, 185 N. C., 727 ; S. v. Hightower, 187 N. C., 300 ; S. v. Breece, 206 N. C., 92 ; N. C.

21936–1936
King v. Bynum. neutral
nc · 1905
1 sentence

1934And this, of course, includes the right of cross-examination.” See, also, King v. Bynum, 137 N. C., 491 , 49 S. E., 955 ; R.

11934–1934
Commissioners v. . R. R. neutral
nc · 1877
1 sentence

1895“We have indeed, as it appears to us, an affirmance of that doctrine in Commissioners v. Railroad, 77 N. C., 289 , where the learned Justice RodhaN, speaking of certain bonds which the defendant company had delivered in New York and which were payable there, and which, it was contended were ‘governed by the laws of New York in respect to the rate of interest,’ says: ‘These bonds were clearly a North Carolina contract; the precedent debt, which was the consideration, was incurred and payable in North Carolina; *896 both parties resided in North Carolina; the bonds were secured by a mortgage on

11895–1895

Where else courts name it

NC 9 (1895–1994) NY 5 (1852–2015) PA 4 (1908–1994) WI 4 (1849–2010) TX 3 (1969–1996) AL 3 (1910–2024) KY 3 (1917–2014) WA 2 (1895–1902) OH 2 (1871–1955) KS 2 (1921–1942) FL 2 (1997–2009)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check