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.
8 North Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1915–2001 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. Leegreen2 sentences1998State v. Lee, 335 N.C. at 286-87 , 439 S.E.2d at 569-70 . 1998State v. Lee, 335 N.C. at 286-87 , 439 S.E.2d at 569-70 . | 1 | 2 |
Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Caseyred2 sentences2001See Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 878 , 112 S.Ct. 2791, 2821 , 120 L.Ed.2d 674, 715 (1992) (using "undue burden" test to balance constitutional right against state's interest). [5] Because Rule 9(j) is unconstitutional in that it unduly restricts access to the courts and violates the equal protection clause of the state and federal constitutions, we need not address Plaintiff's arguments concerning the constitutionality of the rule based on exclusive emoluments or due process. 2001See Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 878 , 112 S.Ct. 2791, 2821 , 120 L.Ed.2d 674, 715 (1992) (using "undue burden" test to balance constitutional right against state's interest). [5] Because Rule 9(j) is unconstitutional in that it unduly restricts access to the courts and violates the equal protection clause of the state and federal constitutions, we need not address Plaintiff's arguments concerning the constitutionality of the rule based on exclusive emoluments or due process. | 1 | 1 |
Williams v. United Statesgreen1 sentence1997See State v. Lee, 335 N.C. 244 , 439 S.E.2d 547 , cert. denied, 513 U.S. 891 , 130 L. | 1 | 1 |
Russell v. United Statesgreen1 sentence1997See State v. Lee, 335 N.C. 244 , 439 S.E.2d 547 , cert. denied, 513 U.S. 891 , 130 L. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Keelgreen2 sentences1997State v. Keel, 337 N.C. 469, 493-94 , 447 S.E.2d 748, 761-62 (1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1198 , 131 L. 1997State v. Keel, 337 N.C. 469, 493-94 , 447 S.E.2d 748, 761-62 (1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1198 , 131 L. | 1 | 1 |
Walker v. Santosgreen1 sentence1995Walker v. Santos, 70 N.C. | 1 | 1 |
Nicholson v. Hugh Chatham Memorial Hospital, Inc.green2 sentences1982“The married woman’s provision in the North Carolina Constitution of 1868, Article X, Section 6, abolished this unrealistic legal concept of married women, and provided that a wife’s property no longer automatically became that of her husband upon marriage.” Nicholson v. Hospital, 300 N.C. 295, 298 , 266 S.E. 2d 818, 820 (1980). 6 . 1982“The married woman’s provision in the North Carolina Constitution of 1868, Article X, Section 6, abolished this unrealistic legal concept of married women, and provided that a wife’s property no longer automatically became that of her husband upon marriage.” Nicholson v. Hospital, 300 N.C. 295, 298 , 266 S.E. 2d 818, 820 (1980). 6 . | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Keel v. North Carolina
green
1 sentence1997State v. Keel, 337 N.C. 469, 493-94 , 447 S.E.2d 748, 761-62 (1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1198 , 131 L. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Rosales v. United States
green
1 sentence1997State v. Keel, 337 N.C. 469, 493-94 , 447 S.E.2d 748, 761-62 (1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1198 , 131 L. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Graham v. Reserve Life Insurance Company
green
2 sentences1975State Hospital v. Bank, 207 N.C. 697 , 178 S.E. 487 (1935) ; Graham v. Insurance Co., 274 N.C. 115 , 161 S.E. 2d 485 (1968) ; Hospital v. Hollifield, 4 N.C. 1975State Hospital v. Bank, 207 N.C. 697 , 178 S.E. 487 (1935) ; Graham v. Insurance Co., 274 N.C. 115 , 161 S.E. 2d 485 (1968) ; Hospital v. Hollifield, 4 N.C. | 1 | 1975–1975 |
State Ex Rel. State State Hospital at Raleigh v. Security National Bank
neutral
2 sentences1975State Hospital v. Bank, 207 N.C. 697 , 178 S.E. 487 (1935) ; Graham v. Insurance Co., 274 N.C. 115 , 161 S.E. 2d 485 (1968) ; Hospital v. Hollifield, 4 N.C. 1975State Hospital v. Bank, 207 N.C. 697 , 178 S.E. 487 (1935) ; Graham v. Insurance Co., 274 N.C. 115 , 161 S.E. 2d 485 (1968) ; Hospital v. Hollifield, 4 N.C. | 1 | 1975–1975 |
State ex rel. Broughton Hospital v. Hollifield
neutral
1 sentence1975State Hospital v. Bank, 207 N.C. 697 , 178 S.E. 487 (1935) ; Graham v. Insurance Co., 274 N.C. 115 , 161 S.E. 2d 485 (1968) ; Hospital v. Hollifield, 4 N.C. | 1 | 1975–1975 |
State v. Barrett.
green
1 sentence1915A similar provision was held to be valid in S. v. Barrett, 138 N. C., 630 , which has been approved by this Court frequently since it was decided. | 1 | 1915–1915 |
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.