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 1952–1993 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. McCoygreen2 sentences1970The rule with respect to an incorrect statement by the judge in recapitulating the evidence is stated in State v. McCoy, 236 N.C. 121 , 71 S.E. 2d 921 (1952), as follows: “While an inaccurate statement of facts contained in the evidence should be called to the attention of the court during or at the conclusion of the charge in order that the error might be corrected, a statement of a material fact not shown in the evidence constitutes reversible error.” See also State v. Revis, 253 N.C. 50 , 116 S.E. 2d 171 (1960). 1970The rule with respect to an incorrect statement by the judge in recapitulating the evidence is stated in State v. McCoy, 236 N.C. 121 , 71 S.E. 2d 921 (1952), as follows: “While an inaccurate statement of facts contained in the evidence should be called to the attention of the court during or at the conclusion of the charge in order that the error might be corrected, a statement of a material fact not shown in the evidence constitutes reversible error.” See also State v. Revis, 253 N.C. 50 , 116 S.E. 2d 171 (1960). | 1 | 4 |
| 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. . Love
neutral
2 sentences1967S. v. Love. 187 N.C. 32 , 121 S.E. 20 .” And, in State v. Knight, 248 N.C. 384 , 103 S.E. 2d 452 , this Court said: . . 1967S. v. Love. 187 N.C. 32 , 121 S.E. 20 .” And, in State v. Knight, 248 N.C. 384 , 103 S.E. 2d 452 , this Court said: . . | 3 | 1952–1967 |
Piedmont Supply Co. v. Rozzell
neutral
2 sentences1971In Supply Co. v. Rozzell, 235 N.C. 631 , 70 S.E. 2d 677 (1952), our Supreme Court said: “The applicable rule of law is, while an inaccurate statement of facts contained in the evidence should be called to the attention of the court in order that the error might be corrected, a statement of a material fact not shown in the evidence constitutes reversible error. 1971In Supply Co. v. Rozzell, 235 N.C. 631 , 70 S.E. 2d 677 (1952), our Supreme Court said: “The applicable rule of law is, while an inaccurate statement of facts contained in the evidence should be called to the attention of the court in order that the error might be corrected, a statement of a material fact not shown in the evidence constitutes reversible error. | 2 | 1952–1971 |
Curlee v. . Scales
neutral
2 sentences1952S. v. Love, 187 N.C. 32 , 121 S.E. 20 ; Smith v. Hosiery Mill, 212 N.C. 661 , 194 S.E. 83 ; S. v. Wyont, 218 N.C. 505 , 11 S.E. 2d 473 ; Curlee v. Scales, 223 N.C. 788 , 28 S.E. 2d 576 ; Steelman v. Benfield, 228 N.C. 651 , 46 S.E. 2d 829 ; Supply Co. v. Bozzell, 235 N.C. 631 . 1952S. v. Love, 187 N.C. 32 , 121 S.E. 20 ; Smith v. Hosiery Mill, 212 N.C. 661 , 194 S.E. 83 ; S. v. Wyont, 218 N.C. 505 , 11 S.E. 2d 473 ; Curlee v. Scales, 223 N.C. 788 , 28 S.E. 2d 576 ; Steelman v. Benfield, 228 N.C. 651 , 46 S.E. 2d 829 ; Supply Co. v. Bozzell, 235 N.C. 631 . | 2 | 1952–1952 |
Smith v. Stanfield Hosiery Mill, Inc.
neutral
2 sentences1952S. v. Love, 187 N.C. 32 , 121 S.E. 20 ; Smith v. Hosiery Mill, 212 N.C. 661 , 194 S.E. 83 ; S. v. Wyont, 218 N.C. 505 , 11 S.E. 2d 473 ; Curlee v. Scales, 223 N.C. 788 , 28 S.E. 2d 576 ; Steelman v. Benfield, 228 N.C. 651 , 46 S.E. 2d 829 ; Supply Co. v. Bozzell, 235 N.C. 631 . 1952S. v. Love, 187 N.C. 32 , 121 S.E. 20 ; Smith v. Hosiery Mill, 212 N.C. 661 , 194 S.E. 83 ; S. v. Wyont, 218 N.C. 505 , 11 S.E. 2d 473 ; Curlee v. Scales, 223 N.C. 788 , 28 S.E. 2d 576 ; Steelman v. Benfield, 228 N.C. 651 , 46 S.E. 2d 829 ; Supply Co. v. Bozzell, 235 N.C. 631 . | 2 | 1952–1952 |
State v. . Wyont
neutral
2 sentences1952S. v. Love, 187 N.C. 32 , 121 S.E. 20 ; Smith v. Hosiery Mill, 212 N.C. 661 , 194 S.E. 83 ; S. v. Wyont, 218 N.C. 505 , 11 S.E. 2d 473 ; Curlee v. Scales, 223 N.C. 788 , 28 S.E. 2d 576 ; Steelman v. Benfield, 228 N.C. 651 , 46 S.E. 2d 829 ; Supply Co. v. Bozzell, 235 N.C. 631 . 1952S. v. Love, 187 N.C. 32 , 121 S.E. 20 ; Smith v. Hosiery Mill, 212 N.C. 661 , 194 S.E. 83 ; S. v. Wyont, 218 N.C. 505 , 11 S.E. 2d 473 ; Curlee v. Scales, 223 N.C. 788 , 28 S.E. 2d 576 ; Steelman v. Benfield, 228 N.C. 651 , 46 S.E. 2d 829 ; Supply Co. v. Bozzell, 235 N.C. 631 . | 2 | 1952–1952 |
Steelman v. . Benfield
green
2 sentences1952S. v. Love, 187 N.C. 32 , 121 S.E. 20 ; Smith v. Hosiery Mill, 212 N.C. 661 , 194 S.E. 83 ; S. v. Wyont, 218 N.C. 505 , 11 S.E. 2d 473 ; Curlee v. Scales, 223 N.C. 788 , 28 S.E. 2d 576 ; Steelman v. Benfield, 228 N.C. 651 , 46 S.E. 2d 829 ; Supply Co. v. Bozzell, 235 N.C. 631 . 1952S. v. Love, 187 N.C. 32 , 121 S.E. 20 ; Smith v. Hosiery Mill, 212 N.C. 661 , 194 S.E. 83 ; S. v. Wyont, 218 N.C. 505 , 11 S.E. 2d 473 ; Curlee v. Scales, 223 N.C. 788 , 28 S.E. 2d 576 ; Steelman v. Benfield, 228 N.C. 651 , 46 S.E. 2d 829 ; Supply Co. v. Bozzell, 235 N.C. 631 . | 2 | 1952–1952 |
State v. Spicer
green
2 sentences1993State v. Spicer, 285 N.C. 274 , 204 S.E.2d 641 (1974). 1993State v. Spicer, 285 N.C. 274 , 204 S.E.2d 641 (1974). | 1 | 1993–1993 |
In Re Will of Atkinson
green
2 sentences1971(Citations)” In the case of In re Will of Atkinson, 225 N.C. 526 , 35 S.E. 2d 638 (1945), the court said: “When the court in its charge submits to the jury for their consideration facts material to the issue, which were no part of the evidence offered, there is prejudicial error.” In 5A C.J.S., Appeal and Error, § 1766, pp. 1228-29, it is said: “Ordinarily the assumption of a material fact where the evidence with regard to it is conflicting, or where it is unsupported by any evidence, will constitute ground for reversal. * * * An instruction is erroneous and requires reversal where it is likel 1971(Citations)” In the case of In re Will of Atkinson, 225 N.C. 526 , 35 S.E. 2d 638 (1945), the court said: “When the court in its charge submits to the jury for their consideration facts material to the issue, which were no part of the evidence offered, there is prejudicial error.” In 5A C.J.S., Appeal and Error, § 1766, pp. 1228-29, it is said: “Ordinarily the assumption of a material fact where the evidence with regard to it is conflicting, or where it is unsupported by any evidence, will constitute ground for reversal. * * * An instruction is erroneous and requires reversal where it is likel | 1 | 1971–1971 |
State v. Revis
green
2 sentences1970The rule with respect to an incorrect statement by the judge in recapitulating the evidence is stated in State v. McCoy, 236 N.C. 121 , 71 S.E. 2d 921 (1952), as follows: “While an inaccurate statement of facts contained in the evidence should be called to the attention of the court during or at the conclusion of the charge in order that the error might be corrected, a statement of a material fact not shown in the evidence constitutes reversible error.” See also State v. Revis, 253 N.C. 50 , 116 S.E. 2d 171 (1960). 1970The rule with respect to an incorrect statement by the judge in recapitulating the evidence is stated in State v. McCoy, 236 N.C. 121 , 71 S.E. 2d 921 (1952), as follows: “While an inaccurate statement of facts contained in the evidence should be called to the attention of the court during or at the conclusion of the charge in order that the error might be corrected, a statement of a material fact not shown in the evidence constitutes reversible error.” See also State v. Revis, 253 N.C. 50 , 116 S.E. 2d 171 (1960). | 1 | 1970–1970 |
State v. Knight
green
2 sentences1967S. v. Love. 187 N.C. 32 , 121 S.E. 20 .” And, in State v. Knight, 248 N.C. 384 , 103 S.E. 2d 452 , this Court said: . . 1967S. v. Love. 187 N.C. 32 , 121 S.E. 20 .” And, in State v. Knight, 248 N.C. 384 , 103 S.E. 2d 452 , this Court said: . . | 1 | 1967–1967 |
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.