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.
9 North Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1916–2022 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
| No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in North Carolina. | ||
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in North Carolina. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Jones v. Mississippi
green
2 sentences2022Id. at 1317–18. 2022Id. at 1317–18. | 3 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Neely
neutral
2 sentences2005Id. 2005Id. | 2 | 2005–2005 |
State v. Neely
green
1 sentence2003Id. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Mickles v. Duke Power Co.
green
1 sentence1996Id. at 112, 463 S.E.2d at 212 . | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Aldridge v. United States District Court
green
1 sentence1996The decision whether to allow repetitive questioning is within the trial court’s discretion, and that decision will not be overturned on appeal absent a showing that the ruling was “so arbitrary that it could not have been the result of a reasoned decision.” State v. Green, 336 N.C. 142, 164 , 443 S.E.2d 14, 27 , cert. denied, - U.S. -, 130 L. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
State v. Green
green
2 sentences1996The decision whether to allow repetitive questioning is within the trial court’s discretion, and that decision will not be overturned on appeal absent a showing that the ruling was “so arbitrary that it could not have been the result of a reasoned decision.” State v. Green, 336 N.C. 142, 164 , 443 S.E.2d 14, 27 , cert. denied, - U.S. -, 130 L. 1996The decision whether to allow repetitive questioning is within the trial court’s discretion, and that decision will not be overturned on appeal absent a showing that the ruling was “so arbitrary that it could not have been the result of a reasoned decision.” State v. Green, 336 N.C. 142, 164 , 443 S.E.2d 14, 27 , cert. denied, - U.S. -, 130 L. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
State v. . Speaks
green
1 sentence1916In S. v. Speaks , 94 N.C. 865 , on an indictment charging that the killing was done with a rock, it was held that there was no error in the charge to the jury that if the killing was done with a rock or other missile, etc., and the Court emphasized the principle stated in the Gould case , that there is no variance when the wound is inflicted with "some other instrument of the same nature and character when the method of the operation is the same." 2. | 1 | 1916–1916 |
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.