M'Naghten rule in North Carolina

9 North Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1974–1996 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 (8)

Case	Followed	Cited
State v. Humphreygreen nc · 1973 · cited in 2 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 1974–1979 2 sentences 1979State v. Wetmore, 287 N.C. 344, 357 , 215 S.E.2d 51, 58-59 (1975); State v. Humphrey, 283 N.C. 570, 574 , 196 S.E.2d 516, 519 (1973). [24] Submission in writing of possible mitigating factors was approved in State v. Goodman, supra . 1979State v. Wetmore, 287 N.C. 344, 357 , 215 S.E.2d 51, 58-59 (1975); State v. Humphrey, 283 N.C. 570, 574 , 196 S.E.2d 516, 519 (1973). [24] Submission in writing of possible mitigating factors was approved in State v. Goodman, supra .	1	2
State v. . Swinkgreen nc · 1948 · cited in 1 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 1991–1991 2 sentences 1991State v. Johnson, 298 N.C. 47, 65-66 , 257 S.E.2d 597, 612 (1979) (quoting State v. Swink, 229 N.C. 123, 125 , 47 S.E.2d 852, 853 (1948)). 1991State v. Johnson, 298 N.C. 47, 65-66 , 257 S.E.2d 597, 612 (1979) (quoting State v. Swink, 229 N.C. 123, 125 , 47 S.E.2d 852, 853 (1948)).	1	1
State v. Johnsongreen nc · 1979 · cited in 1 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 1991–1991 2 sentences 1991State v. Johnson, 298 N.C. 47, 65-66 , 257 S.E.2d 597, 612 (1979) (quoting State v. Swink, 229 N.C. 123, 125 , 47 S.E.2d 852, 853 (1948)). 1991State v. Johnson, 298 N.C. 47, 65-66 , 257 S.E.2d 597, 612 (1979) (quoting State v. Swink, 229 N.C. 123, 125 , 47 S.E.2d 852, 853 (1948)).	1	1
State v. Mashgreen nc · 1988 · cited in 1 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 1989–1989 2 sentences 1989“In certain instances voluntary drunkenness, while not an excuse for a criminal act, may be sufficient to negate the requisite intent element.” State v. Mash, 323 N.C. 339, 347 , 372 S.E. 2d 532, 537 (1988). 658 While one who is intoxicated may still be able to form whatever specific intent is required for conviction, see State v. Hamby, 276 N.C. 674 , 174 S.E. 2d 385 (1970), one may also be intoxicated and due to a mental illness or defect meet the M’Naghten test for insanity. 1989“In certain instances voluntary drunkenness, while not an excuse for a criminal act, may be sufficient to negate the requisite intent element.” State v. Mash, 323 N.C. 339, 347 , 372 S.E. 2d 532, 537 (1988). 658 While one who is intoxicated may still be able to form whatever specific intent is required for conviction, see State v. Hamby, 276 N.C. 674 , 174 S.E. 2d 385 (1970), one may also be intoxicated and due to a mental illness or defect meet the M’Naghten test for insanity.	1	1
State v. Connleygreen nc · 1978 · cited in 1 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 1981–1981 2 sentences 1981See State v. Connley, 295 N.C. 327 , 245 S.E.2d 663 (1978), vacated on other grounds, 441 U.S. 929 , 60 L.Ed.2d 657 , 99 S.Ct. 2046 (1979), and cases cited therein. 1981See State v. Connley, 295 N.C. 327 , 245 S.E.2d 663 (1978), vacated on other grounds, 441 U.S. 929 , 60 L.Ed.2d 657 , 99 S.Ct. 2046 (1979), and cases cited therein.	1	1
North Carolina v. Connleygreen scotus · 1979 · cited in 1 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 1981–1981 2 sentences 1981See State v. Connley, 295 N.C. 327 , 245 S.E.2d 663 (1978), vacated on other grounds, 441 U.S. 929 , 60 L.Ed.2d 657 , 99 S.Ct. 2046 (1979), and cases cited therein. 1981See State v. Connley, 295 N.C. 327 , 245 S.E.2d 663 (1978), vacated on other grounds, 441 U.S. 929 , 60 L.Ed.2d 657 , 99 S.Ct. 2046 (1979), and cases cited therein.	1	1
State v. Wetmoregreen nc · 1975 · cited in 1 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 1979–1979 2 sentences 1979State v. Wetmore, 287 N.C. 344, 357 , 215 S.E.2d 51, 58-59 (1975); State v. Humphrey, 283 N.C. 570, 574 , 196 S.E.2d 516, 519 (1973). [24] Submission in writing of possible mitigating factors was approved in State v. Goodman, supra . 1979State v. Wetmore, 287 N.C. 344, 357 , 215 S.E.2d 51, 58-59 (1975); State v. Humphrey, 283 N.C. 570, 574 , 196 S.E.2d 516, 519 (1973). [24] Submission in writing of possible mitigating factors was approved in State v. Goodman, supra .	1	1
State v. Helmsgreen nc · 1974 · cited in 1 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 1978–1978 2 sentences 1978Defendant concedes that this test, known as the M’Naghten rule, has “existed in North Carolina for well over a century.” State v. Helms, 284 N.C. 508 , 201 S.E. 2d 850 (1974). 1978Defendant concedes that this test, known as the M’Naghten rule, has “existed in North Carolina for well over a century.” State v. Helms, 284 N.C. 508 , 201 S.E. 2d 850 (1974).	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

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

Also cited on this issue (18)

Case	Cited	Years
State v. Weeks green nc · 1988 2 sentences 1996Id. 1996Id.	1	1996–1996
State v. Hamby green nc · 1970 2 sentences 1989“In certain instances voluntary drunkenness, while not an excuse for a criminal act, may be sufficient to negate the requisite intent element.” State v. Mash, 323 N.C. 339, 347 , 372 S.E. 2d 532, 537 (1988). 658 While one who is intoxicated may still be able to form whatever specific intent is required for conviction, see State v. Hamby, 276 N.C. 674 , 174 S.E. 2d 385 (1970), one may also be intoxicated and due to a mental illness or defect meet the M’Naghten test for insanity. 1989“In certain instances voluntary drunkenness, while not an excuse for a criminal act, may be sufficient to negate the requisite intent element.” State v. Mash, 323 N.C. 339, 347 , 372 S.E. 2d 532, 537 (1988). 658 While one who is intoxicated may still be able to form whatever specific intent is required for conviction, see State v. Hamby, 276 N.C. 674 , 174 S.E. 2d 385 (1970), one may also be intoxicated and due to a mental illness or defect meet the M’Naghten test for insanity.	1	1989–1989
State v. Evangelista green nc · 1987 2 sentences 1987State v. Evang 59 elista, 319 N.C. 152 , 353 S.E. 2d 375 . 1987State v. Evang 59 elista, 319 N.C. 152 , 353 S.E. 2d 375 .	1	1987–1987
People v. Drew green cal · 1978 2 sentences 1979People v. Drew, supra, 149 Cal.Rptr. at 279 , 583 P.2d at 1322 . [22] 613 The MPC attempts to meet these criticisms by avoiding the all or nothing approach of the M'Naghten test and referring instead to lack of "substantial capacity" rather than lack of all capacity. 1979People v. Drew, supra, 149 Cal.Rptr. at 279 , 583 P.2d at 1322 . [22] 613 The MPC attempts to meet these criticisms by avoiding the all or nothing approach of the M'Naghten test and referring instead to lack of "substantial capacity" rather than lack of all capacity.	1	1979–1979
Carolina v. Taylor green nc · 1976 2 sentences 1978As Justice Huskins, speaking for the Court, said in State v. Helms, 284 N.C. 508, 514 , 201 S.E. 2d 850, 854 (1975) “[T]he M’Naghten rule is constitutionally sound; and our adherence to it is based on reason and common sense.” Accord, State v. Pagano, 294 N.C. 729 , 242 S.E. 2d 825 (1978); State v. Willard, 292 N.C. 567 , 234 S.E. 2d 587 (1977); State v. Harris, 290 N.C. 718 , 228 S.E. 2d 424 (1976); State v. Taylor, 290 N.C. 220 , 226 S.E. 2d 23 (1976); State v. Hammonds, 290 N.C. 1 , 224 S.E. 2d 595 (1976). 1978As Justice Huskins, speaking for the Court, said in State v. Helms, 284 N.C. 508, 514 , 201 S.E. 2d 850, 854 (1975) “[T]he M’Naghten rule is constitutionally sound; and our adherence to it is based on reason and common sense.” Accord, State v. Pagano, 294 N.C. 729 , 242 S.E. 2d 825 (1978); State v. Willard, 292 N.C. 567 , 234 S.E. 2d 587 (1977); State v. Harris, 290 N.C. 718 , 228 S.E. 2d 424 (1976); State v. Taylor, 290 N.C. 220 , 226 S.E. 2d 23 (1976); State v. Hammonds, 290 N.C. 1 , 224 S.E. 2d 595 (1976).	1	1978–1978
State v. Caldwell green · 1977 2 sentences 1978Further, we again point out, as we did in State v. Caldwell, 293 N.C. 336 , 237 S.E. 2d 742 (1977), that the decision in Mullaney v. Wilbur, 421 U.S. 684 , 44 L.Ed. 2d 508 , 95 S.Ct. 1881 (1975) did not change our rule that the burden of proof with respect to insanity rests upon the defendant pleading it. 1978Further, we again point out, as we did in State v. Caldwell, 293 N.C. 336 , 237 S.E. 2d 742 (1977), that the decision in Mullaney v. Wilbur, 421 U.S. 684 , 44 L.Ed. 2d 508 , 95 S.Ct. 1881 (1975) did not change our rule that the burden of proof with respect to insanity rests upon the defendant pleading it.	1	1978–1978
State v. Harris green nc · 1976 2 sentences 1978As Justice Huskins, speaking for the Court, said in State v. Helms, 284 N.C. 508, 514 , 201 S.E. 2d 850, 854 (1975) “[T]he M’Naghten rule is constitutionally sound; and our adherence to it is based on reason and common sense.” Accord, State v. Pagano, 294 N.C. 729 , 242 S.E. 2d 825 (1978); State v. Willard, 292 N.C. 567 , 234 S.E. 2d 587 (1977); State v. Harris, 290 N.C. 718 , 228 S.E. 2d 424 (1976); State v. Taylor, 290 N.C. 220 , 226 S.E. 2d 23 (1976); State v. Hammonds, 290 N.C. 1 , 224 S.E. 2d 595 (1976). 1978As Justice Huskins, speaking for the Court, said in State v. Helms, 284 N.C. 508, 514 , 201 S.E. 2d 850, 854 (1975) “[T]he M’Naghten rule is constitutionally sound; and our adherence to it is based on reason and common sense.” Accord, State v. Pagano, 294 N.C. 729 , 242 S.E. 2d 825 (1978); State v. Willard, 292 N.C. 567 , 234 S.E. 2d 587 (1977); State v. Harris, 290 N.C. 718 , 228 S.E. 2d 424 (1976); State v. Taylor, 290 N.C. 220 , 226 S.E. 2d 23 (1976); State v. Hammonds, 290 N.C. 1 , 224 S.E. 2d 595 (1976).	1	1978–1978
State v. Jones green nc · 1977 2 sentences 1978As recently as State v. Jones, 293 N.C. 413, 425 , 238 S.E. 2d 482 (1977), we have reaffirmed our adherence to the M’Naghten Rule as the test of insanity as a defense to a criminal charge. 1978As recently as State v. Jones, 293 N.C. 413, 425 , 238 S.E. 2d 482 (1977), we have reaffirmed our adherence to the M’Naghten Rule as the test of insanity as a defense to a criminal charge.	1	1978–1978
State v. Willard green nc · 1977 2 sentences 1978As Justice Huskins, speaking for the Court, said in State v. Helms, 284 N.C. 508, 514 , 201 S.E. 2d 850, 854 (1975) “[T]he M’Naghten rule is constitutionally sound; and our adherence to it is based on reason and common sense.” Accord, State v. Pagano, 294 N.C. 729 , 242 S.E. 2d 825 (1978); State v. Willard, 292 N.C. 567 , 234 S.E. 2d 587 (1977); State v. Harris, 290 N.C. 718 , 228 S.E. 2d 424 (1976); State v. Taylor, 290 N.C. 220 , 226 S.E. 2d 23 (1976); State v. Hammonds, 290 N.C. 1 , 224 S.E. 2d 595 (1976). 1978As Justice Huskins, speaking for the Court, said in State v. Helms, 284 N.C. 508, 514 , 201 S.E. 2d 850, 854 (1975) “[T]he M’Naghten rule is constitutionally sound; and our adherence to it is based on reason and common sense.” Accord, State v. Pagano, 294 N.C. 729 , 242 S.E. 2d 825 (1978); State v. Willard, 292 N.C. 567 , 234 S.E. 2d 587 (1977); State v. Harris, 290 N.C. 718 , 228 S.E. 2d 424 (1976); State v. Taylor, 290 N.C. 220 , 226 S.E. 2d 23 (1976); State v. Hammonds, 290 N.C. 1 , 224 S.E. 2d 595 (1976).	1	1978–1978
Mullaney v. Wilbur green scotus · 1975 2 sentences 1978Further, we again point out, as we did in State v. Caldwell, 293 N.C. 336 , 237 S.E. 2d 742 (1977), that the decision in Mullaney v. Wilbur, 421 U.S. 684 , 44 L.Ed. 2d 508 , 95 S.Ct. 1881 (1975) did not change our rule that the burden of proof with respect to insanity rests upon the defendant pleading it. 1978Further, we again point out, as we did in State v. Caldwell, 293 N.C. 336 , 237 S.E. 2d 742 (1977), that the decision in Mullaney v. Wilbur, 421 U.S. 684 , 44 L.Ed. 2d 508 , 95 S.Ct. 1881 (1975) did not change our rule that the burden of proof with respect to insanity rests upon the defendant pleading it.	1	1978–1978
State v. Pagano green nc · 1978 2 sentences 1978As Justice Huskins, speaking for the Court, said in State v. Helms, 284 N.C. 508, 514 , 201 S.E. 2d 850, 854 (1975) “[T]he M’Naghten rule is constitutionally sound; and our adherence to it is based on reason and common sense.” Accord, State v. Pagano, 294 N.C. 729 , 242 S.E. 2d 825 (1978); State v. Willard, 292 N.C. 567 , 234 S.E. 2d 587 (1977); State v. Harris, 290 N.C. 718 , 228 S.E. 2d 424 (1976); State v. Taylor, 290 N.C. 220 , 226 S.E. 2d 23 (1976); State v. Hammonds, 290 N.C. 1 , 224 S.E. 2d 595 (1976). 1978As Justice Huskins, speaking for the Court, said in State v. Helms, 284 N.C. 508, 514 , 201 S.E. 2d 850, 854 (1975) “[T]he M’Naghten rule is constitutionally sound; and our adherence to it is based on reason and common sense.” Accord, State v. Pagano, 294 N.C. 729 , 242 S.E. 2d 825 (1978); State v. Willard, 292 N.C. 567 , 234 S.E. 2d 587 (1977); State v. Harris, 290 N.C. 718 , 228 S.E. 2d 424 (1976); State v. Taylor, 290 N.C. 220 , 226 S.E. 2d 23 (1976); State v. Hammonds, 290 N.C. 1 , 224 S.E. 2d 595 (1976).	1	1978–1978
State v. Hammonds green nc · 1976 2 sentences 1978As Justice Huskins, speaking for the Court, said in State v. Helms, 284 N.C. 508, 514 , 201 S.E. 2d 850, 854 (1975) “[T]he M’Naghten rule is constitutionally sound; and our adherence to it is based on reason and common sense.” Accord, State v. Pagano, 294 N.C. 729 , 242 S.E. 2d 825 (1978); State v. Willard, 292 N.C. 567 , 234 S.E. 2d 587 (1977); State v. Harris, 290 N.C. 718 , 228 S.E. 2d 424 (1976); State v. Taylor, 290 N.C. 220 , 226 S.E. 2d 23 (1976); State v. Hammonds, 290 N.C. 1 , 224 S.E. 2d 595 (1976). 1978As Justice Huskins, speaking for the Court, said in State v. Helms, 284 N.C. 508, 514 , 201 S.E. 2d 850, 854 (1975) “[T]he M’Naghten rule is constitutionally sound; and our adherence to it is based on reason and common sense.” Accord, State v. Pagano, 294 N.C. 729 , 242 S.E. 2d 825 (1978); State v. Willard, 292 N.C. 567 , 234 S.E. 2d 587 (1977); State v. Harris, 290 N.C. 718 , 228 S.E. 2d 424 (1976); State v. Taylor, 290 N.C. 220 , 226 S.E. 2d 23 (1976); State v. Hammonds, 290 N.C. 1 , 224 S.E. 2d 595 (1976).	1	1978–1978
Spence v. North Carolina green scotus · 1968 2 sentences 1974State v. Humphrey, 283 N.C. 570 , 196 S.E. 2d 516 (1973); State v. Mercer, 275 N.C. 108 , 165 S.E. 2d 328 (1969); State v. Spence, 271 N.C. 23 , 155 S.E. 2d 802 , rev’d on other grounds, 392 U.S. 649 , 20 L.Ed. 2d 1350 , 88 S.Ct. 2290 (1967); 514 State v. Creech, 229 N.C. 662 , 51 S.E. 2d 348 (1949); State v. Potts, 100 N.C. 457 , 6 S.E. 657 (1888); State v. Brandon, 53 N.C. 463 (1862). 1974State v. Humphrey, 283 N.C. 570 , 196 S.E. 2d 516 (1973); State v. Mercer, 275 N.C. 108 , 165 S.E. 2d 328 (1969); State v. Spence, 271 N.C. 23 , 155 S.E. 2d 802 , rev’d on other grounds, 392 U.S. 649 , 20 L.Ed. 2d 1350 , 88 S.Ct. 2290 (1967); 514 State v. Creech, 229 N.C. 662 , 51 S.E. 2d 348 (1949); State v. Potts, 100 N.C. 457 , 6 S.E. 657 (1888); State v. Brandon, 53 N.C. 463 (1862).	1	1974–1974
State v. Spence green nc · 1967 2 sentences 1974State v. Humphrey, 283 N.C. 570 , 196 S.E. 2d 516 (1973); State v. Mercer, 275 N.C. 108 , 165 S.E. 2d 328 (1969); State v. Spence, 271 N.C. 23 , 155 S.E. 2d 802 , rev’d on other grounds, 392 U.S. 649 , 20 L.Ed. 2d 1350 , 88 S.Ct. 2290 (1967); 514 State v. Creech, 229 N.C. 662 , 51 S.E. 2d 348 (1949); State v. Potts, 100 N.C. 457 , 6 S.E. 657 (1888); State v. Brandon, 53 N.C. 463 (1862). 1974State v. Humphrey, 283 N.C. 570 , 196 S.E. 2d 516 (1973); State v. Mercer, 275 N.C. 108 , 165 S.E. 2d 328 (1969); State v. Spence, 271 N.C. 23 , 155 S.E. 2d 802 , rev’d on other grounds, 392 U.S. 649 , 20 L.Ed. 2d 1350 , 88 S.Ct. 2290 (1967); 514 State v. Creech, 229 N.C. 662 , 51 S.E. 2d 348 (1949); State v. Potts, 100 N.C. 457 , 6 S.E. 657 (1888); State v. Brandon, 53 N.C. 463 (1862).	1	1974–1974
State v. . Creech green nc · 1949 2 sentences 1974State v. Humphrey, 283 N.C. 570 , 196 S.E. 2d 516 (1973); State v. Mercer, 275 N.C. 108 , 165 S.E. 2d 328 (1969); State v. Spence, 271 N.C. 23 , 155 S.E. 2d 802 , rev’d on other grounds, 392 U.S. 649 , 20 L.Ed. 2d 1350 , 88 S.Ct. 2290 (1967); 514 State v. Creech, 229 N.C. 662 , 51 S.E. 2d 348 (1949); State v. Potts, 100 N.C. 457 , 6 S.E. 657 (1888); State v. Brandon, 53 N.C. 463 (1862). 1974State v. Humphrey, 283 N.C. 570 , 196 S.E. 2d 516 (1973); State v. Mercer, 275 N.C. 108 , 165 S.E. 2d 328 (1969); State v. Spence, 271 N.C. 23 , 155 S.E. 2d 802 , rev’d on other grounds, 392 U.S. 649 , 20 L.Ed. 2d 1350 , 88 S.Ct. 2290 (1967); 514 State v. Creech, 229 N.C. 662 , 51 S.E. 2d 348 (1949); State v. Potts, 100 N.C. 457 , 6 S.E. 657 (1888); State v. Brandon, 53 N.C. 463 (1862).	1	1974–1974
State v. . Brandon neutral nc · 1862 2 sentences 1974State v. Humphrey, 283 N.C. 570 , 196 S.E. 2d 516 (1973); State v. Mercer, 275 N.C. 108 , 165 S.E. 2d 328 (1969); State v. Spence, 271 N.C. 23 , 155 S.E. 2d 802 , rev’d on other grounds, 392 U.S. 649 , 20 L.Ed. 2d 1350 , 88 S.Ct. 2290 (1967); 514 State v. Creech, 229 N.C. 662 , 51 S.E. 2d 348 (1949); State v. Potts, 100 N.C. 457 , 6 S.E. 657 (1888); State v. Brandon, 53 N.C. 463 (1862). 1974State v. Humphrey, 283 N.C. 570 , 196 S.E. 2d 516 (1973); State v. Mercer, 275 N.C. 108 , 165 S.E. 2d 328 (1969); State v. Spence, 271 N.C. 23 , 155 S.E. 2d 802 , rev’d on other grounds, 392 U.S. 649 , 20 L.Ed. 2d 1350 , 88 S.Ct. 2290 (1967); 514 State v. Creech, 229 N.C. 662 , 51 S.E. 2d 348 (1949); State v. Potts, 100 N.C. 457 , 6 S.E. 657 (1888); State v. Brandon, 53 N.C. 463 (1862).	1	1974–1974
State v. Mercer green nc · 1969 2 sentences 1974State v. Humphrey, 283 N.C. 570 , 196 S.E. 2d 516 (1973); State v. Mercer, 275 N.C. 108 , 165 S.E. 2d 328 (1969); State v. Spence, 271 N.C. 23 , 155 S.E. 2d 802 , rev’d on other grounds, 392 U.S. 649 , 20 L.Ed. 2d 1350 , 88 S.Ct. 2290 (1967); 514 State v. Creech, 229 N.C. 662 , 51 S.E. 2d 348 (1949); State v. Potts, 100 N.C. 457 , 6 S.E. 657 (1888); State v. Brandon, 53 N.C. 463 (1862). 1974State v. Humphrey, 283 N.C. 570 , 196 S.E. 2d 516 (1973); State v. Mercer, 275 N.C. 108 , 165 S.E. 2d 328 (1969); State v. Spence, 271 N.C. 23 , 155 S.E. 2d 802 , rev’d on other grounds, 392 U.S. 649 , 20 L.Ed. 2d 1350 , 88 S.Ct. 2290 (1967); 514 State v. Creech, 229 N.C. 662 , 51 S.E. 2d 348 (1949); State v. Potts, 100 N.C. 457 , 6 S.E. 657 (1888); State v. Brandon, 53 N.C. 463 (1862).	1	1974–1974
State v. . Potts green nc · 1888 2 sentences 1974State v. Humphrey, 283 N.C. 570 , 196 S.E. 2d 516 (1973); State v. Mercer, 275 N.C. 108 , 165 S.E. 2d 328 (1969); State v. Spence, 271 N.C. 23 , 155 S.E. 2d 802 , rev’d on other grounds, 392 U.S. 649 , 20 L.Ed. 2d 1350 , 88 S.Ct. 2290 (1967); 514 State v. Creech, 229 N.C. 662 , 51 S.E. 2d 348 (1949); State v. Potts, 100 N.C. 457 , 6 S.E. 657 (1888); State v. Brandon, 53 N.C. 463 (1862). 1974State v. Humphrey, 283 N.C. 570 , 196 S.E. 2d 516 (1973); State v. Mercer, 275 N.C. 108 , 165 S.E. 2d 328 (1969); State v. Spence, 271 N.C. 23 , 155 S.E. 2d 802 , rev’d on other grounds, 392 U.S. 649 , 20 L.Ed. 2d 1350 , 88 S.Ct. 2290 (1967); 514 State v. Creech, 229 N.C. 662 , 51 S.E. 2d 348 (1949); State v. Potts, 100 N.C. 457 , 6 S.E. 657 (1888); State v. Brandon, 53 N.C. 463 (1862).	1	1974–1974

Where else courts name it

CA 66 (1964–2026) MS 57 (1968–2026) KS 45 (1960–2020) PA 45 (1955–2023) AZ 37 (1964–2018) IA 27 (1968–2024) WA 26 (1957–2023) MN 20 (1967–2026) NJ 20 (1959–2025) FL 17 (1959–2015) VA 16 (1998–2025) OK 14 (1963–2000) MD 12 (1961–1991) OR 12 (1966–2020) AK 10 (1970–2021) NV 10 (1967–2021) TX 10 (1970–2013) RI 10 (1969–2012) NC 9 (1974–1996) NE 8 (1973–2018) TN 7 (1969–1999) WI 6 (1960–2014) HI 5 (1967–2020) MA 5 (1967–2024) UT 4 (1982–1999) CO 4 (1990–1993) WV 4 (1990–2014) OH 4 (1982–2003) SC 3 (1986–1997) CT 3 (1979–1984) MT 3 (1963–1993) MI 2 (1973–2001) SD 2 (1976–1980) NM 2 (1955–1977) LA 2 (1976–1981)

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