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 3 courts 2009–2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
Blankenship v. Bartlettgreen2 sentences2026So our courts have “generally follow[ed]” the United States Supreme Court’s analysis “in interpreting the corresponding federal clause.” Blankenship v. Bartlett, 363 N.C. 518, 522 , 681 S.E.2d 759, 762 (2009). 14 The only specific mention in Plaintiffs’ evidence submitted in opposition to summary judgment of “the area around the [m]onument” comes from Chris Thomason’s declaration. 2026So our courts have “generally follow[ed]” the United States Supreme Court’s analysis “in interpreting the corresponding federal clause.” Blankenship v. Bartlett, 363 N.C. 518, 522 , 681 S.E.2d 759, 762 (2009). 14 The only specific mention in Plaintiffs’ evidence submitted in opposition to summary judgment of “the area around the [m]onument” comes from Chris Thomason’s declaration. | 5 | 5 |
Bulova Watch Co. v. Brand Distributors of North Wilkesboro, Inc.green2 sentences2023“However, in the construction of the provision of the State Constitution, the meaning given by the Supreme Court of the United States to even an identical term in the Constitution of the United States is, though highly persuasive, not binding upon this Court.”7 Bulova Watch Co. v. Brand Distribs. of N. Wilkesboro, Inc., 285 N.C. 467, 474 , 206 S.E.2d 141, 146 (1974). 7 Of course, this Court must follow Supreme Court precedent when we interpret provisions of the United States Constitution. -30- CMTY. 2023“However, in the construction of the provision of the State Constitution, the meaning given by the Supreme Court of the United States to even an identical term in the Constitution of the United States is, though highly persuasive, not binding upon this Court.”7 Bulova Watch Co. v. Brand Distribs. of N. Wilkesboro, Inc., 285 N.C. 467, 474 , 206 S.E.2d 141, 146 (1974). 7 Of course, this Court must follow Supreme Court precedent when we interpret provisions of the United States Constitution. -30- CMTY. | 4 | 4 |
Richardson v. North Carolina Department of Correctiongreen1 sentence2023This Court’s analysis of our Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause has “generally follow[ed] the analysis of the Supreme Court of the United States in interpreting the corresponding federal clause.”4 Id. at 522, 681 S.E.2d at 762 . | 1 | 1 |
Banyai v. Mazurgreen1 sentence2012This principle finds further support in federal case law applying Rule 23 for class actions, which Delaware courts look to in interpreting Rule 23.1.7 See Banyai v. Mazur, 205 F.R.D. 160, 163 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) (“[A] district court must accept as true the substantive allegations in the complaint . . . and does not conduct even a preliminary inquiry 6 Since Court of Chancery Rule 23.1 mirrors the corresponding federal rule, Delaware courts look to accompanying federal case law to interpret the adequacy of derivative representatives. | 1 | 1 |
Youngman v. Tahmoushgreen1 sentence2012See Youngman v. Tahmoush, 457 A.2d 376 (Del. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Barnesgreen2 sentences2009"However, in the construction of the provision of the State Constitution, the meaning given by the Supreme Court of the United States to even an identical term in the Constitution of the United States is, though highly persuasive, not binding upon this Court." Bulova Watch Co. v. Brand Distribs. of N. Wilkesboro, Inc., 285 N.C. 467, 474 , 206 S.E.2d 141, 146 (1974) (citing State v. Barnes, 264 N.C. 517, 520 , 142 S.E.2d 344, 346 (1965)). 2009"However, in the construction of the provision of the State Constitution, the meaning given by the Supreme Court of the United States to even an identical term in the Constitution of the United States is, though highly persuasive, not binding upon this Court." Bulova Watch Co. v. Brand Distribs. of N. Wilkesboro, Inc., 285 N.C. 467, 474 , 206 S.E.2d 141, 146 (1974) (citing State v. Barnes, 264 N.C. 517, 520 , 142 S.E.2d 344, 346 (1965)). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Howerton v. Arai Helmet, Ltd.
red
1 sentence2014Based on this statute, our Supreme Court in Howerton, 358 N.C. at 458 , 597 S.E.2d at 686 , devised a three-part test for the admissibility of expert testimony which has trial courts ask: “(1) Is the expert’s proffered method of proof sufficiently reliable as an area for expert testimony? (2) Is the witness testifying at trial qualified as an expert in that area of testimony? (3) Is the expert’s testimony relevant?” The North Carolina General Assembly later amended Rule 702(a), adding language similar to the corresponding federal rule of evidence. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
In the Matter of Yocum
red
1 sentence2014Based on this statute, our Supreme Court in Howerton, 358 N.C. at 458 , 597 S.E.2d at 686 , devised a three-part test for the admissibility of expert testimony which has trial courts ask: “(1) Is the expert’s proffered method of proof sufficiently reliable as an area for expert testimony? (2) Is the witness testifying at trial qualified as an expert in that area of testimony? (3) Is the expert’s testimony relevant?” The North Carolina General Assembly later amended Rule 702(a), adding language similar to the corresponding federal rule of evidence. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
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.