61 North Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1918–2025 7 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 |
|---|---|---|
Finch v. City of Durhamgreen2 sentences2019App. 726 , 731, 676 S.E.2d 69 , 73 (2009) (quotation marks and citations omitted). "[A]lthough the North Carolina Constitution does not contain an express provision prohibiting the taking of private property for public use without payment of just compensation, this Court has inferred such a provision as a fundamental right integral to the 'law of the land' clause in article I, section 19 of our Constitution." Finch v. City of Durham , 325 N.C. 352 , 362-63, 384 S.E.2d 8 , 14 (1989) (citations omitted). "[A] reasonable user fee is not a taking if it is imposed for the reimbursement of the cost 2019App. 726 , 731, 676 S.E.2d 69 , 73 (2009) (quotation marks and citations omitted). "[A]lthough the North Carolina Constitution does not contain an express provision prohibiting the taking of private property for public use without payment of just compensation, this Court has inferred such a provision as a fundamental right integral to the 'law of the land' clause in article I, section 19 of our Constitution." Finch v. City of Durham , 325 N.C. 352 , 362-63, 384 S.E.2d 8 , 14 (1989) (citations omitted). "[A] reasonable user fee is not a taking if it is imposed for the reimbursement of the cost | 5 | 7 |
State v. Brunsongreen2 sentences2020“The law of the land clause, the basis for the former jeopardy defense in North Carolina, is conceptually similar to federal due process,” and therefore we “view the opinions of the United States Supreme Court with high regard in the context of interpreting our own law of the land clause.” Brunson, 327 N.C. at 249 , 393 S.E.2d at 864 (citations omitted). 2020“The law of the land clause, the basis for the former jeopardy defense in North Carolina, is conceptually similar to federal due process,” and therefore we “view the opinions of the United States Supreme Court with high regard in the context of interpreting our own law of the land clause.” Brunson, 327 N.C. at 249 , 393 S.E.2d at 864 (citations omitted). | 5 | 6 |
McNeill v. Harnett Countygreen2 sentences2001Ed. at 1165 , and although “[decisions by the federal courts as to the construction and effect of the due process clause of the United States Constitution ... do not control an interpretation by this Court of the law of the land clause of our state Constitution], they] are . . . persuasive [authority],” McNeill v. Harnett County, 327 N.C. 552, 563 , 398 S.E.2d 475, 481 (1990) (citations omitted). 2001Ed. at 1165 , and although “[decisions by the federal courts as to the construction and effect of the due process clause of the United States Constitution ... do not control an interpretation by this Court of the law of the land clause of our state Constitution], they] are . . . persuasive [authority],” McNeill v. Harnett County, 327 N.C. 552, 563 , 398 S.E.2d 475, 481 (1990) (citations omitted). | 4 | 4 |
In Re Certificate of Need for Aston Park Hospital, Inc.green2 sentences2006"Whether a state statute violates the law of the land clause `is a question of degree and reasonableness in relation to the public good likely to result from it.'" Id. (quoting In re Hospital, 282 N.C. 542 , 193 S.E.2d 729 (1973)). 2006"Whether a state statute violates the law of the land clause `is a question of degree and reasonableness in relation to the public good likely to result from it.'" Id. (quoting In re Hospital, 282 N.C. 542 , 193 S.E.2d 729 (1973)). | 3 | 5 |
State v. Wileygreen2 sentences2025App. 668, 677-78 , 673 S.E.2d 712, 718 (2009) (holding that arguments pertaining to Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and law of the land clause of the North Carolina Constitution, although constitutional issues, were not raised before the trial court and therefore not properly preserved for appeal); State v. Wiley, 355 N.C. 592, 615 , 565 S.E.2d 22, 39 (2002) (“It is well settled that an error, even one of constitutional magnitude, that is not brought to the trial court’s attention is waived and will not be considered on appeal.”). 2025App. 668, 677-78 , 673 S.E.2d 712, 718 (2009) (holding that arguments pertaining to Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and law of the land clause of the North Carolina Constitution, although constitutional issues, were not raised before the trial court and therefore not properly preserved for appeal); State v. Wiley, 355 N.C. 592, 615 , 565 S.E.2d 22, 39 (2002) (“It is well settled that an error, even one of constitutional magnitude, that is not brought to the trial court’s attention is waived and will not be considered on appeal.”). | 3 | 3 |
Department of Transportation v. Haywood Oil Co.green2 sentences2025App. 668, 677-78 , 673 S.E.2d 712, 718 (2009) (holding that arguments pertaining to Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and law of the land clause of the North Carolina Constitution, although constitutional issues, were not raised before the trial court and therefore not properly preserved for appeal); State v. Wiley, 355 N.C. 592, 615 , 565 S.E.2d 22, 39 (2002) (“It is well settled that an error, even one of constitutional magnitude, that is not brought to the trial court’s attention is waived and will not be considered on appeal.”). 2022App. 668 , 677–78, 673 S.E.2d 712, 718 (2009) (holding that arguments pertaining to Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and law of the land clause of the North Carolina Constitution, although constitutional issues, were not raised before the trial court and therefore not properly preserved for appeal); State v. Wiley, 355 N.C. 592, 615 , 565 S.E.2d 22, 39 (2002) (“It is well settled that an error, even one of constitutional magnitude, that [is not brought] to the trial court’s attention is waived and will not be considered on appeal.”). ¶8 Nothing in Petersen serves to negat | 3 | 3 |
Woods v. City of Wilmingtongreen2 sentences2021Our state’s “law of the land clause is considered ‘synonymous’ with the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.” Woods v. City of Wilmington, 125 N.C. 2021Our state’s “law of the land clause is considered ‘synonymous’ with the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.” Woods v. City of Wilmington, 125 N.C. | 3 | 3 |
Treants Enterprises, Inc. v. Onslow Countygreen2 sentences2024With respect to the second prong, “[a] single standard determines whether [an] ordinance passes constitutional muster imposed by both section 1 and the ‘law of the land’ clause of section 19: the ordinance must be rationally related to a substantial government purpose.” Treants Enter., Inc. v. Onslow County, 320 N.C. 776 , 778–79, 360 S.E.2d 783, 785 (1987). “[T]o survive constitutional scrutiny under this provision, the challenged state action ‘must be reasonably necessary to promote the - 15 - PROCTOR V. 2024With respect to the second prong, “[a] single standard determines whether [an] ordinance passes constitutional muster imposed by both section 1 and the ‘law of the land’ clause of section 19: the ordinance must be rationally related to a substantial government purpose.” Treants Enter., Inc. v. Onslow County, 320 N.C. 776 , 778–79, 360 S.E.2d 783, 785 (1987). “[T]o survive constitutional scrutiny under this provision, the challenged state action ‘must be reasonably necessary to promote the - 15 - PROCTOR V. | 2 | 4 |
Long v. City of Charlottegreen2 sentences2011V. “[Although the North Carolina Constitution does not contain an express provision prohibiting the taking of private property for public use without payment of just compensation, th[e] [North Carolina Supreme Court] has inferred such a provision as a fundamental right integral to the ‘law of the land’ clause in article 1, section 19 of our Constitution.” Finch v. City of Durham, 325 N.C. 352, 362-63 , 384 S.E.2d 8, 14 (1989) (citing Long v. City of Charlotte, 306 N.C. 187, 196 , 293 S.E.2d 101, 107-08 (1982)). *315 “It is a well settled constitutional principle that actual physical occupation 2011V. “[Although the North Carolina Constitution does not contain an express provision prohibiting the taking of private property for public use without payment of just compensation, th[e] [North Carolina Supreme Court] has inferred such a provision as a fundamental right integral to the ‘law of the land’ clause in article 1, section 19 of our Constitution.” Finch v. City of Durham, 325 N.C. 352, 362-63 , 384 S.E.2d 8, 14 (1989) (citing Long v. City of Charlotte, 306 N.C. 187, 196 , 293 S.E.2d 101, 107-08 (1982)). *315 “It is a well settled constitutional principle that actual physical occupation | 2 | 3 |
State v. Ballengergreen2 sentences2009North Carolina’s “ ‘law of the land’ clause incorporates similar protections under the North Carolina Constitution.” State v. Ballenger, 123 N.C. 2008North Carolina’s “ ‘law of the land’ clause incorporates similar protections under the North Carolina Constitution.” State v. Ballenger, 123 N.C. | 2 | 2 |
Lowe v. Tarblegreen2 sentences2006"Whether a state statute violates the law of the land clause `is a question of degree and reasonableness in relation to the public good likely to result from it.'" Id. (quoting In re Hospital, 282 N.C. 542 , 193 S.E.2d 729 (1973)). 2006“Whether a state statute violates the law of the land clause ‘is a question of degree and reasonableness in relation to the public good likely to result from it.’ ” Id. (quoting In re Hospital, 282 N.C. 542 , 193 S.E.2d 729 (1973)). | 1 | 3 |
Bulova Watch Co. v. Brand Distributors of North Wilkesboro, Inc.green2 sentences2001While “[d]ecisions by the federal courts as to the construction and effect of the due process clause of the United States Constitution are binding on this Court . . . , such decisions, although persuasive, do not control an interpretation by this Court of the law of the land clause in our state Constitution.” McNeill v. Harnett County, 327 N.C. 552, 563 , 398 S.E.2d 475, 481 (1990); see also State v. Carter, 322 N.C. 709, 713 , 370 S.E.2d 553, 555 (1988) (recognizing that this Court “ha[s] the authority to construe [the Constitution of North Carolina] differently from the construction by the U 2001While “[d]ecisions by the federal courts as to the construction and effect of the due process clause of the United States Constitution are binding on this Court . . . , such decisions, although persuasive, do not control an interpretation by this Court of the law of the land clause in our state Constitution.” McNeill v. Harnett County, 327 N.C. 552, 563 , 398 S.E.2d 475, 481 (1990); see also State v. Carter, 322 N.C. 709, 713 , 370 S.E.2d 553, 555 (1988) (recognizing that this Court “ha[s] the authority to construe [the Constitution of North Carolina] differently from the construction by the U | 1 | 3 |
Summey Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. County of Hendersongreen2 sentences2013“The ‘law of the land’ clause has the same meaning as ‘due process of law’ under the Federal Constitution.” Summey Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. County of Henderson, 96 N.C. 2000Our courts have long held that “[t]he ‘law of the land’ clause has the same meaning as ‘due process of law’ under the Federal Constitution.” Summey Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. County of Henderson, 96 N.C. | 1 | 2 |
Treants Enterprises, Inc. v. Onslow Countygreen2 sentences2009“A single standard” has traditionally determined “whether legislation constitutes an improper exercise of the police power so as to violate the ‘law of the land’ clause: the law must have a rational, real and substantial relation to a valid governmental objective (i.e., the protection of the public health, morals, order, safety, or general welfare).” Treants Enters., Inc. v. Onslow Cty., 83 N.C. 2008“A single standard has traditionally determined whether legislation . . . violate [s] the ‘law of the land’ clause: the law must have a rational, real and substantial relation to a valid governmental objective (i.e., the protection of the public health, morals, order, safety, or general welfare).” Treants Enter., Inc., 83 N.C. | 1 | 2 |
State v. . Ballancegreen2 sentences2024CITY OF JACKSONVILLE Opinion of the Court accomplishment of a public good, or to prevent the infliction of a public harm.’” Ace Speedway Racing, Ltd., __ N.C. at __, 904 S.E.2d at 726 (quoting Ballance, 229 N.C. at 768, 51 S.E.2d at 731 (1949)). 2024CITY OF JACKSONVILLE Opinion of the Court accomplishment of a public good, or to prevent the infliction of a public harm.’” Ace Speedway Racing, Ltd., __ N.C. at __, 904 S.E.2d at 726 (quoting Ballance, 229 N.C. at 768, 51 S.E.2d at 731 (1949)). | 1 | 1 |
A-S-P Associates v. City of Raleighgreen1 sentence2024See id. (“These constitutional protections have been consistently interpreted to permit the [S]tate, through the exercise of its police power, to regulate economic enterprises provided the regulation is rationally related to a proper governmental purpose.”). | 1 | 1 |
Bigelow v. Town of Chapel Hillgreen2 sentences2016Bd. of Transp. , 308 N.C. 603 , 304 S.E.2d 164 (1983) ; see also Bigelow v. Town of Chapel Hill , 227 N.C.App. 1 , 14-15, 745 S.E.2d 316 , 326-27 (applying the holding in Corum and reversing the trial court's dismissal of the plaintiffs' claims under the North Carolina Constitution against the Town of Chapel Hill), disc. review denied , 367 N.C. 223 , 747 S.E.2d 543 (2013) ; Patterson v. City of Gastonia , 220 N.C.App. 233 , 239, 725 S.E.2d 82 , 88 (applying the holding in Corum and reversing the trial court's dismissal of the plaintiffs' claims under the North Carolina Constitution against th 2016Bd. of Transp. , 308 N.C. 603 , 304 S.E.2d 164 (1983) ; see also Bigelow v. Town of Chapel Hill , 227 N.C.App. 1 , 14-15, 745 S.E.2d 316 , 326-27 (applying the holding in Corum and reversing the trial court's dismissal of the plaintiffs' claims under the North Carolina Constitution against the Town of Chapel Hill), disc. review denied , 367 N.C. 223 , 747 S.E.2d 543 (2013) ; Patterson v. City of Gastonia , 220 N.C.App. 233 , 239, 725 S.E.2d 82 , 88 (applying the holding in Corum and reversing the trial court's dismissal of the plaintiffs' claims under the North Carolina Constitution against th | 1 | 1 |
| Powell v. Prodev X, LLCgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Bigelow v. Town of Chapel Hillgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Brown v. Ohiogreen | 1 | 1 |
| Armstrong v. United Statesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| City of Greensboro v. Pearcegreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Guicegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Eller v. Board of Education of Buncombe Countygreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Cartergreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Jonesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Huntergreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Whitegreen | 1 | 1 |
| In Re the Custody of Guptongreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Shulergreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Camerongreen | 1 | 1 |
| Wake County, Ex Rel. Carrington v. Townesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Freelandgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Horton v. Gulledgegreen | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Triangle Leasing Co., Inc. v. McMahon
green
2 sentences2020“The law of the land clause, the basis for the former jeopardy defense in North Carolina, is conceptually similar to federal due process,” and therefore we “view the opinions of the United States Supreme Court with high regard in the context of interpreting our own law of the land clause.” Brunson, 327 N.C. at 249 , 393 S.E.2d at 864 (citations omitted). 2020“The law of the land clause, the basis for the former jeopardy defense in North Carolina, is conceptually similar to federal due process,” and therefore we “view the opinions of the United States Supreme Court with high regard in the context of interpreting our own law of the land clause.” Brunson, 327 N.C. at 249 , 393 S.E.2d at 864 (citations omitted). | 6 | 2000–2020 |
National Surety Corporation v. Sharpe
green
2 sentences1968Eason v. Spence, 232 N.C. 579 , 61 S.E. 2d 717 ; Surety Corp v. Sharpe, 232 N.C. 98 , 59 S.E. 2d 593 . 1968Eason v. Spence, 232 N.C. 579 , 61 S.E. 2d 717 ; Surety Corp v. Sharpe, 232 N.C. 98 , 59 S.E. 2d 593 . | 3 | 1951–1968 |
Eason v. Spence
green
2 sentences1968Eason v. Spence, 232 N.C. 579 , 61 S.E. 2d 717 ; Surety Corp v. Sharpe, 232 N.C. 98 , 59 S.E. 2d 593 . 1968Eason v. Spence, 232 N.C. 579 , 61 S.E. 2d 717 ; Surety Corp v. Sharpe, 232 N.C. 98 , 59 S.E. 2d 593 . | 3 | 1951–1968 |
Summey Outdoor Advertising v. County of Henderson
green
2 sentences2013App. 533, 541 , 386 S.E.2d 439, 444 (1989), disc. rev. denied, 326 N.C. 486 , 392 S.E.2d 101 (1990). 2000App. 533, 541 , 386 S.E.2d 439, 444 , disc. review denied, 326 N.C. 486 , 392 S.E.2d 101 (1989); see also State v. Jones, *187 305 N.C. 520 , 290 S.E.2d 675 (1982); State v. Smith, 90 N.C. | 2 | 2000–2013 |
State v. Strickland
green
2 sentences2013App. 533, 541 , 386 S.E.2d 439, 444 (1989), disc. rev. denied, 326 N.C. 486 , 392 S.E.2d 101 (1990). 2000App. 533, 541 , 386 S.E.2d 439, 444 , disc. review denied, 326 N.C. 486 , 392 S.E.2d 101 (1989); see also State v. Jones, *187 305 N.C. 520 , 290 S.E.2d 675 (1982); State v. Smith, 90 N.C. | 2 | 2000–2013 |
State v. . Speller
green
2 sentences1963S. v. Peoples, 131 N.C. 784 , 42 S.E. 814 ; S. v. Speller, 229 N.C. 67 , 47 S.E. 2d 537 ; Miller v. State, supra; S. v. Perry, 248 N.C. 334 , 103 S.E. 2d 404 ; S. v. Perry, 250 N.C. 119 , 108 S.E. 2d 447 .” Therefore, it necessarily follows that the indictment of a Negro defendant by a grand jury in a state court from which members of his race have been intentionally excluded solely because of their race is not good, for the reason that as to such Negro defendant it is not a legal grand jury, and defendant pursued the proper remedy, motions to quash the indictments here in apt time under -our 1963S. v. Peoples, 131 N.C. 784 , 42 S.E. 814 ; S. v. Speller, 229 N.C. 67 , 47 S.E. 2d 537 ; Miller v. State, supra; S. v. Perry, 248 N.C. 334 , 103 S.E. 2d 404 ; S. v. Perry, 250 N.C. 119 , 108 S.E. 2d 447 .” Therefore, it necessarily follows that the indictment of a Negro defendant by a grand jury in a state court from which members of his race have been intentionally excluded solely because of their race is not good, for the reason that as to such Negro defendant it is not a legal grand jury, and defendant pursued the proper remedy, motions to quash the indictments here in apt time under -our | 2 | 1953–1963 |
McMillan v. Robeson County
green
1 sentence2025Both the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and the law of the land clause in Article I, Section 19 of the North Carolina Constitution “require notice and an opportunity to be heard before a citizen may be deprived of his property.” McMillan v. Robeson County, 262 N.C. 413 , 417–18 (1964). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Homebuilders Ass'n of Charlotte, Inc. v. City of Charlotte
green
2 sentences2024Plaintiffs also allege the UDO requires unreasonably high fees in violation of the North Carolina Supreme Court’s holding in Homebuilders Association of Charlotte, Inc. v. City of Charlotte, 336 N.C. 37 , 442 S.E.2d 45 (1994). 2024Plaintiffs also allege the UDO requires unreasonably high fees in violation of the North Carolina Supreme Court’s holding in Homebuilders Association of Charlotte, Inc. v. City of Charlotte, 336 N.C. 37 , 442 S.E.2d 45 (1994). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
United States v. Sperry Corp.
green
2 sentences2019App. 726 , 731, 676 S.E.2d 69 , 73 (2009) (quotation marks and citations omitted). "[A]lthough the North Carolina Constitution does not contain an express provision prohibiting the taking of private property for public use without payment of just compensation, this Court has inferred such a provision as a fundamental right integral to the 'law of the land' clause in article I, section 19 of our Constitution." Finch v. City of Durham , 325 N.C. 352 , 362-63, 384 S.E.2d 8 , 14 (1989) (citations omitted). "[A] reasonable user fee is not a taking if it is imposed for the reimbursement of the cost 2019App. 726 , 731, 676 S.E.2d 69 , 73 (2009) (quotation marks and citations omitted). "[A]lthough the North Carolina Constitution does not contain an express provision prohibiting the taking of private property for public use without payment of just compensation, this Court has inferred such a provision as a fundamental right integral to the 'law of the land' clause in article I, section 19 of our Constitution." Finch v. City of Durham , 325 N.C. 352 , 362-63, 384 S.E.2d 8 , 14 (1989) (citations omitted). "[A] reasonable user fee is not a taking if it is imposed for the reimbursement of the cost | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Gamble v. United States
green
2 sentences2019"Our double jeopardy case law is complex, but at its core, the Clause means that those acquitted or convicted of a particular 'offence' cannot be tried a second time for the same 'offence.' " Gamble v. United States , --- U.S. ----, 139 S. Ct. 1960 , 1964, 204 L.Ed.2d 322 (2019) (quoting U.S. Const. amend. 2019"Our double jeopardy case law is complex, but at its core, the Clause means that those acquitted or convicted of a particular 'offence' cannot be tried a second time for the same 'offence.' " Gamble v. United States , --- U.S. ----, 139 S. Ct. 1960 , 1964, 204 L.Ed.2d 322 (2019) (quoting U.S. Const. amend. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Sullivan v. Pender County
green
1 sentence2019App. 726 , 731, 676 S.E.2d 69 , 73 (2009) (quotation marks and citations omitted). "[A]lthough the North Carolina Constitution does not contain an express provision prohibiting the taking of private property for public use without payment of just compensation, this Court has inferred such a provision as a fundamental right integral to the 'law of the land' clause in article I, section 19 of our Constitution." Finch v. City of Durham , 325 N.C. 352 , 362-63, 384 S.E.2d 8 , 14 (1989) (citations omitted). "[A] reasonable user fee is not a taking if it is imposed for the reimbursement of the cost | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Guilford County Department of Emergency Services v. Seaboard Chemical Corp.
green
2 sentences2017Serv. v. Seaboard Chemical Corp., 114 N.C. 2017Serv. v. Seaboard Chemical Corp. , 114 N.C. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| Midgett v. North Carolina State Highway Commission green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
State v. Sellers
neutral
1 sentence2016Bd. of Transp. , 308 N.C. 603 , 304 S.E.2d 164 (1983) ; see also Bigelow v. Town of Chapel Hill , 227 N.C.App. 1 , 14-15, 745 S.E.2d 316 , 326-27 (applying the holding in Corum and reversing the trial court's dismissal of the plaintiffs' claims under the North Carolina Constitution against the Town of Chapel Hill), disc. review denied , 367 N.C. 223 , 747 S.E.2d 543 (2013) ; Patterson v. City of Gastonia , 220 N.C.App. 233 , 239, 725 S.E.2d 82 , 88 (applying the holding in Corum and reversing the trial court's dismissal of the plaintiffs' claims under the North Carolina Constitution against th | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| Patterson v. City of Gastonia neutral | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| Lea Co. v. North Carolina Board of Transportation green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| Patterson v. CITY OF GASTONIA green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| State v. Birckhead green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| State v. Holmes neutral | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| State v. Guice neutral | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| State v. Brunson green | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| Simpson v. NORTH CAROLINA LOCAL GOVERNMENT EMP. RETIRE. SYS. green | 1 | 2006–2006 |
| State v. Evans green | 1 | 2005–2005 |
| Finch v. City of Durham green | 1 | 2002–2002 |
| State v. Smith green | 1 | 2000–2000 |
| Oregon v. Kennedy green | 1 | 1992–1992 |
| Burroughs v. McNeill green | 1 | 1991–1991 |
| Spencer v. Texas green | 1 | 1990–1990 |
| State v. Ballard green | 1 | 1990–1990 |
| State v. . Mansfield green | 1 | 1990–1990 |
| Jones v. Kemp green | 1 | 1990–1990 |
| Lake v. Estelle green | 1 | 1990–1990 |
| State v. Crocker green | 1 | 1990–1990 |
| Henry v. Edmisten green | 1 | 1989–1989 |
| Aronov v. Secretary of Revenue neutral | 1 | 1988–1988 |
| Rigby v. Clayton green | 1 | 1988–1988 |
| State v. Gardner green | 1 | 1986–1986 |
| Andrews v. Bruton green | 1 | 1969–1969 |
| Locklear v. Oxendine green | 1 | 1969–1969 |
| State v. Peoples. green | 1 | 1963–1963 |
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.