9 North Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 2014–2026 5 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. Robinsongreen2 sentences2020See State v. Robinson, 368 N.C. 596, 597 , 780 S.E.2d 151, 152 (2015) (Robinson II). 2020See State v. Robinson, 368 N.C. 596, 597 , 780 S.E.2d 151, 152 (2015) (Robinson II). | 3 | 3 |
Miller-El v. Dretkegreen2 sentences2022BENNETT 2022-NCCOA-212 Opinion of the Court prosecution’s decision to accept one Black juror because it could be done to obscure an otherwise consistent pattern of opposition to seating Black jurors); Flowers, 139 S. Ct. at 2244 (“The question for this Court is whether the Mississippi trial court clearly erred in concluding that the State was not motivated in substantial part by discriminatory intent when exercising peremptory strikes at Flowers’ sixth trial.” (citation and quotations omitted)); Miller-El II, 545 U.S. at 241, 125 S. Ct. at 2325 (explaining at the start of its analysis that it 2022BENNETT 2022-NCCOA-212 Opinion of the Court prosecution’s decision to accept one Black juror because it could be done to obscure an otherwise consistent pattern of opposition to seating Black jurors); Flowers, 139 S. Ct. at 2244 (“The question for this Court is whether the Mississippi trial court clearly erred in concluding that the State was not motivated in substantial part by discriminatory intent when exercising peremptory strikes at Flowers’ sixth trial.” (citation and quotations omitted)); Miller-El II, 545 U.S. at 241, 125 S. Ct. at 2325 (explaining at the start of its analysis that it | 2 | 2 |
Flowers v. Mississippigreen2 sentences2022BENNETT 2022-NCCOA-212 Opinion of the Court prosecution’s decision to accept one Black juror because it could be done to obscure an otherwise consistent pattern of opposition to seating Black jurors); Flowers, 139 S. Ct. at 2244 (“The question for this Court is whether the Mississippi trial court clearly erred in concluding that the State was not motivated in substantial part by discriminatory intent when exercising peremptory strikes at Flowers’ sixth trial.” (citation and quotations omitted)); Miller-El II, 545 U.S. at 241, 125 S. Ct. at 2325 (explaining at the start of its analysis that it 2022BENNETT 2022-NCCOA-212 Opinion of the Court prosecution’s decision to accept one Black juror because it could be done to obscure an otherwise consistent pattern of opposition to seating Black jurors); Flowers, 139 S. Ct. at 2244 (“The question for this Court is whether the Mississippi trial court clearly erred in concluding that the State was not motivated in substantial part by discriminatory intent when exercising peremptory strikes at Flowers’ sixth trial.” (citation and quotations omitted)); Miller-El II, 545 U.S. at 241, 125 S. Ct. at 2325 (explaining at the start of its analysis that it | 2 | 2 |
In re B.O.A.green1 sentence2026Opinion of the Court convincing evidence are “deemed conclusive even if the record contains evidence that would support a contrary finding.” In re B.O.A., 372 N.C. 372, 379 (2019) (citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Fleminggreen1 sentence2014See State v. Fleming, 106 N.C. | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Ponder v. Ponder
green
2 sentences2022App. 301 , 786 S.E.2d 44 (2016), that the renewal order was void because it lacked any supported Findings of Fact. ¶ 25 The trial court did not have an evidentiary hearing specifically to renew the DVPO because at the start of the hearing on Plaintiff’s motion to renew the DVPO— JABARI V. 2022App. 301 , 786 S.E.2d 44 (2016), that the renewal order was void because it lacked any supported Findings of Fact. ¶ 25 The trial court did not have an evidentiary hearing specifically to renew the DVPO because at the start of the hearing on Plaintiff’s motion to renew the DVPO— JABARI V. | 2 | 2022–2022 |
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.