9 North Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1980–2020 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. Bovendergreen2 sentences1984In State v. Bovender, 233 N.C. 683 , 65 S.E. 2d 323 (1951), we stated that the purpose behind the rule prohibiting comment on the failure to testify is that extended reference by the court or counsel concerning this would nullify the policy that the failure to testify should not create a presumption against the defendant. 1984In State v. Bovender, 233 N.C. 683 , 65 S.E. 2d 323 (1951), we stated that the purpose behind the rule prohibiting comment on the failure to testify is that extended reference by the court or counsel concerning this would nullify the policy that the failure to testify should not create a presumption against the defendant. | 1 | 2 |
In Re ACFgreen1 sentence2020App. 520, 527 , 626 S.E.2d 729, 734 (2006), notes that the purpose behind this requirement is to “provide[ ] parents with at least twelve months’ notice to correct the conditions which led to the removal of their children before being made to respond to a pleading seeking the termination of his or her parental rights.” The provision thus helps ensure that for a period of time the child does not reside in the home in which they would typically reside if the parent had full custody and supervision—it gives the parent a chance to get things in order in that home so that perhaps the child could ev | 1 | 1 |
State v. Smithgreen2 sentences2007The purpose behind the requirement of showing good cause to withdraw a waiver of counsel is that, in the absence of good cause, a defendant would be "permitted to control the course of litigation and sidetrack the trial." State v. Smith, 27 N.C.App. 379, 381 , 219 S.E.2d 277, 279 (1975). 2007The purpose behind the requirement of showing good cause to withdraw a waiver of counsel is that, in the absence of good cause, a defendant would be "permitted to control the course of litigation and sidetrack the trial." State v. Smith, 27 N.C.App. 379, 381 , 219 S.E.2d 277, 279 (1975). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Randolphgreen2 sentences1995We have stated that “the purpose behind the rule prohibiting comment on the failure to testify is that extended reference by the court or counsel concerning this would nullify the policy that the failure to testify should not create a presumption against the defendant.” State v. Randolph, 312 N.C. 198, 206 , 321 S.E.2d 864, 869 (1984) (emphasis added). 1995We have stated that “the purpose behind the rule prohibiting comment on the failure to testify is that extended reference by the court or counsel concerning this would nullify the policy that the failure to testify should not create a presumption against the defendant.” State v. Randolph, 312 N.C. 198, 206 , 321 S.E.2d 864, 869 (1984) (emphasis added). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Anderson Ex Rel. Anderson v. Butler
green
2 sentences1980We evaluate this contention in light of the purpose behind the requirement of Rule 50(a) that specific grounds for the motion be stated. *299 “The purpose of the rule is to apprise the Court and the adverse parties of movant’s grounds for the motion.” Anderson v. Butler, 284 N.C. at 728 , 202 S.E. 2d at 588 . 1980We evaluate this contention in light of the purpose behind the requirement of Rule 50(a) that specific grounds for the motion be stated. *299 “The purpose of the rule is to apprise the Court and the adverse parties of movant’s grounds for the motion.” Anderson v. Butler, 284 N.C. at 728 , 202 S.E. 2d at 588 . | 2 | 1980–2001 |
State v. Parker
green
2 sentences2009The Court pointed out that the purpose behind the rule is "to protect against convictions for crimes that have not in fact occurred." Id. at 236 , 337 S.E.2d at 495 . 2009The Court pointed out that the purpose behind the rule is "to protect against convictions for crimes that have not in fact occurred." Id. at 236 , 337 S.E.2d at 495 . | 1 | 2009–2009 |
State v. Barnes
green
1 sentence1995State v. Bovender, 233 N.C. 683, 689-90 , 65 S.E.2d 323, 329 (1951), overruled on other grounds, State v. Barnes, 324 N.C. 539 , 380 S.E.2d 118 (1989). | 1 | 1995–1995 |
State v. Barnes
green
1 sentence1995State v. Bovender, 233 N.C. 683, 689-90 , 65 S.E.2d 323, 329 (1951), overruled on other grounds, State v. Barnes, 324 N.C. 539 , 380 S.E.2d 118 (1989). | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Great American Insurance v. C. G. Tate Construction Co.
green
2 sentences1988If, on the other hand, the purpose of protecting the insurer’s ability to de *647 fend has been frustrated, the insurer has no duty under the contract.” Insurance Co. v. Construction Co., 303 N.C. at 396 , 279 S.E. 2d at 774-75 . 1988If, on the other hand, the purpose of protecting the insurer’s ability to de *647 fend has been frustrated, the insurer has no duty under the contract.” Insurance Co. v. Construction Co., 303 N.C. at 396 , 279 S.E. 2d at 774-75 . | 1 | 1988–1988 |
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.