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.
14 North Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 2015–2026 10 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 |
|---|---|---|
Bailey v. Stategreen2 sentences2023Our courts use a three-factor test to “determine whether a Contract Clause violation exists.” Id. (citing Bailey v. State, 348 N.C. 130, 141 , 500 S.E.2d 54, 60 (1998)). 2023Our courts use a three-factor test to “determine whether a Contract Clause violation exists.” Id. (citing Bailey v. State, 348 N.C. 130, 141 , 500 S.E.2d 54, 60 (1998)). | 2 | 4 |
State v. Lawrencegreen2 sentences2025Second, the defendant must show that the error had a “probable impact” on the outcome, meaning that “absent the error, the jury probably would have returned a different verdict.” Finally, the defendant must show that the error is an “exceptional case” that warrants plain error review, typically by showing that the error seriously affects “the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” State v. Reber, 386 N.C. 153 , 158 (2024) (quoting Lawrence, 365 N.C. at 518-19). 2024When we issued our “doctrinal statement” on plain error in Lawrence, we incorporated these principles into a three-factor test: First, the defendant must show that a fundamental error occurred at trial. 365 N.C. at 518 . | 2 | 2 |
Little v. Omega Meats I, Inc.green2 sentences2022Little v. Omega Meats I, Inc., 171 N.C. App. 583, 588 (2005) (citing McLean v. Kirby Co., 490 N.W.2d 229 (N.D. 1992); Baugher v. A. Hattersley & Sons, Inc., 436 N.E.2d 126, 129 (Ind. Ct. App. 1982); Parry v. Davidson-Paxon Co., 73 S.E.2d 59 (Ga. Ct. App. 1952); Goforth v. Off. 2022Little v. Omega Meats I, Inc., 171 N.C. App. 583, 588 (2005) (citing McLean v. Kirby Co., 490 N.W.2d 229 (N.D. 1992); Baugher v. A. Hattersley & Sons, Inc., 436 N.E.2d 126, 129 (Ind. Ct. App. 1982); Parry v. Davidson-Paxon Co., 73 S.E.2d 59 (Ga. Ct. App. 1952); Goforth v. Off. | 2 | 2 |
Baugher v. A. Hattersley & Sons, Inc.green2 sentences2022Little v. Omega Meats I, Inc., 171 N.C. App. 583, 588 (2005) (citing McLean v. Kirby Co., 490 N.W.2d 229 (N.D. 1992); Baugher v. A. Hattersley & Sons, Inc., 436 N.E.2d 126, 129 (Ind. Ct. App. 1982); Parry v. Davidson-Paxon Co., 73 S.E.2d 59 (Ga. Ct. App. 1952); Goforth v. Off. 2022Little v. Omega Meats I, Inc., 171 N.C. App. 583, 588 (2005) (citing McLean v. Kirby Co., 490 N.W.2d 229 (N.D. 1992); Baugher v. A. Hattersley & Sons, Inc., 436 N.E.2d 126, 129 (Ind. Ct. App. 1982); Parry v. Davidson-Paxon Co., 73 S.E.2d 59 (Ga. Ct. App. 1952); Goforth v. Off. | 2 | 2 |
Solem v. Helmred2 sentences2018See Helm, 463 U.S. at 290 -92 , 103 S.Ct. 3001 , 77 L.Ed. 2d at 649-50 (applying a three-factor test to strike down a sentence as significantly disproportionate after considering (1) the gravity of the offense versus the harshness of the penalty, (2) the sentences imposed on other criminals in the same jurisdiction, and (3) the sentences imposed for the commission of the same crime in other jurisdictions). 2018See Helm, 463 U.S. at 290 -92 , 103 S.Ct. 3001 , 77 L.Ed. 2d at 649-50 (applying a three-factor test to strike down a sentence as significantly disproportionate after considering (1) the gravity of the offense versus the harshness of the penalty, (2) the sentences imposed on other criminals in the same jurisdiction, and (3) the sentences imposed for the commission of the same crime in other jurisdictions). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Reber
green
2 sentences2025Thus, the defendant has the burden to meet a three-factor test: (1) that a fundamental error occurred at trial; (2) that without the error the jury probably would have reached a different conclusion; and (3) that the error is an exceptional case, “seriously [affecting] the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” State v. Reber, 386 N.C. 153 , 158 (2024). 2025As our Supreme Court recently reiterated, plain error is established by -4- satisfying “a three-factor test.” State v. Reber, 386 N.C. 153 , 158, 900 S.E.2d 781 , 786 (2024). | 6 | 2025–2026 |
United States Trust Co. of NY v. New Jersey
green
2 sentences2015The trial court based this conclusion on its application of the three-factor test articulated by the United States Supreme Court in U.S. Trust Co. v. New Jersey, 431 U.S. 1 , 97 S.Ct. 1505 , 52 L.Ed.2d 92 (1977) to determine whether a state law violates the Contract Clause. 2015The trial court based this conclusion on its application of the three-factor test articulated by the United States Supreme Court in U.S. Trust Co. v. New Jersey, 431 U.S. 1 , 97 S.Ct. 1505 , 52 L.Ed.2d 92 (1977) to determine whether a state law violates the Contract Clause. | 2 | 2015–2023 |
McLean v. Kirby Co.
green
2 sentences2022Little v. Omega Meats I, Inc., 171 N.C. App. 583, 588 (2005) (citing McLean v. Kirby Co., 490 N.W.2d 229 (N.D. 1992); Baugher v. A. Hattersley & Sons, Inc., 436 N.E.2d 126, 129 (Ind. Ct. App. 1982); Parry v. Davidson-Paxon Co., 73 S.E.2d 59 (Ga. Ct. App. 1952); Goforth v. Off. 2022Little v. Omega Meats I, Inc., 171 N.C. App. 583, 588 (2005) (citing McLean v. Kirby Co., 490 N.W.2d 229 (N.D. 1992); Baugher v. A. Hattersley & Sons, Inc., 436 N.E.2d 126, 129 (Ind. Ct. App. 1982); Parry v. Davidson-Paxon Co., 73 S.E.2d 59 (Ga. Ct. App. 1952); Goforth v. Off. | 2 | 2022–2022 |
Parry v. Davison-Paxon Co.
green
2 sentences2022Little v. Omega Meats I, Inc., 171 N.C. App. 583, 588 (2005) (citing McLean v. Kirby Co., 490 N.W.2d 229 (N.D. 1992); Baugher v. A. Hattersley & Sons, Inc., 436 N.E.2d 126, 129 (Ind. Ct. App. 1982); Parry v. Davidson-Paxon Co., 73 S.E.2d 59 (Ga. Ct. App. 1952); Goforth v. Off. 2022Little v. Omega Meats I, Inc., 171 N.C. App. 583, 588 (2005) (citing McLean v. Kirby Co., 490 N.W.2d 229 (N.D. 1992); Baugher v. A. Hattersley & Sons, Inc., 436 N.E.2d 126, 129 (Ind. Ct. App. 1982); Parry v. Davidson-Paxon Co., 73 S.E.2d 59 (Ga. Ct. App. 1952); Goforth v. Off. | 2 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Earley
neutral
2 sentences2026Second, the defendant must show that the error had a “probable impact” on the outcome, meaning that “absent the error, the jury probably would have returned a different verdict.” Finally, the defendant must show that the error is an “exceptional case” that warrants plain error review, typically by showing that the error seriously affects “the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” State v. Earley, 298 N.C. App. 172 , 184-85, 914 S.E.2d 79 , 88 (2025) (quoting State v. Reber, 386 N.C. 153 , 158, 900 S.E.2d 781 , 786 (2024)). 2026Second, the defendant must show that the error had a “probable impact” on the outcome, meaning that “absent the error, the jury probably would have returned a different verdict.” Finally, the defendant must show that the error is an “exceptional case” that warrants plain error review, typically by showing that the error seriously affects “the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” State v. Earley, 298 N.C. App. 172 , 184-85, 914 S.E.2d 79 , 88 (2025) (quoting State v. Reber, 386 N.C. 153 , 158, 900 S.E.2d 781 , 786 (2024)). | 1 | 2026–2026 |
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.