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 1989–2014 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. Huntgreen2 sentences2004Several of these circumstances have been identified as when “the witness’s testimony was extensive and vital to the government’s case, that the party calling the witness was genuinely surprised by his reversal, or that the trial court followed the introduction of the statement with an effective limiting instruction.” Hunt, 324 N.C. at 350 , 378 S.E.2d at 758 (citation omitted). 2004Several of these circumstances have been identified as when “the witness’s testimony was extensive and vital to the government’s case, that the party calling the witness was genuinely surprised by his reversal, or that the trial court followed the introduction of the statement with an effective limiting instruction.” Hunt, 324 N.C. at 350 , 378 S.E.2d at 758 (citation omitted). | 5 | 6 |
| 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. Riccard
green
2 sentences2014Riccard, 142 N.C. 2012Third, we do not believe “mere shbterfuge” took place on the part of the State: the credibility of the eyewitnesses’ testimony was certainly “vital to the government’s case[;]” although defendant contends “the State knew that witness Hicks and witness Porter were going to testify that any previous statement given by each was not the truth[,]” defendant has not directed this Court’s attention to any indication in the record that the State was not “genuinely surprised” by the witnesses’ denial of portion of their statements at trial; lastly, the trial court also “fol lowed the introduction of th | 2 | 2012–2014 |
United States v. Vincent Delillo, David Francis and Clearview Concrete Products Corporation
green
2 sentences1989Circumstances indicating good faith and the absence of subterfuge in these exceptional cases have included the facts that the witness's testimony was extensive and vital to the government's case, United States v. DeLillo, 620 F.2d 939 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 835 , 101 S.Ct. 107 , 66 L.Ed.2d 41 (1980); that the party calling the witness was genuinely surprised by his reversal, United States v. Webster, 734 F.2d 1191 ; or that the trial court followed the introduction of the statement with an effective limiting instruction, DeLillo, 620 F.2d 939 ; United States v. Long Soldier, 562 F.2 1989Circumstances indicating good faith and the absence of subterfuge in these exceptional cases have included the facts that the witness's testimony was extensive and vital to the government's case, United States v. DeLillo, 620 F.2d 939 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 835 , 101 S.Ct. 107 , 66 L.Ed.2d 41 (1980); that the party calling the witness was genuinely surprised by his reversal, United States v. Webster, 734 F.2d 1191 ; or that the trial court followed the introduction of the statement with an effective limiting instruction, DeLillo, 620 F.2d 939 ; United States v. Long Soldier, 562 F.2 | 1 | 1989–1989 |
United States v. Clinton Webster
green
2 sentences1989Circumstances indicating good faith and the absence of subterfuge in these exceptional cases have included the facts that the witness's testimony was extensive and vital to the government's case, United States v. DeLillo, 620 F.2d 939 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 835 , 101 S.Ct. 107 , 66 L.Ed.2d 41 (1980); that the party calling the witness was genuinely surprised by his reversal, United States v. Webster, 734 F.2d 1191 ; or that the trial court followed the introduction of the statement with an effective limiting instruction, DeLillo, 620 F.2d 939 ; United States v. Long Soldier, 562 F.2 1989Circumstances indicating good faith and the absence of subterfuge in these exceptional cases have included the facts that the witness’s testimony was extensive and vital to the government’s case, United States v. DeLillo, 620 F. 2d 939 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 835 , 66 L.Ed. 2d 41 (1980); that the party calling the witness was genuinely surprised by his reversal, United States v. Webster, 734 F. 2d 1191 ; or that the trial court followed the introduction of the statement with an effective limiting instruction, DeLillo, 620 F. 2d 939 ; United States v. Long Soldier, 562 F. 2d 601 (8th | 1 | 1989–1989 |
United States v. Charles Long Soldier
green
2 sentences1989Circumstances indicating good faith and the absence of subterfuge in these exceptional cases have included the facts that the witness's testimony was extensive and vital to the government's case, United States v. DeLillo, 620 F.2d 939 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 835 , 101 S.Ct. 107 , 66 L.Ed.2d 41 (1980); that the party calling the witness was genuinely surprised by his reversal, United States v. Webster, 734 F.2d 1191 ; or that the trial court followed the introduction of the statement with an effective limiting instruction, DeLillo, 620 F.2d 939 ; United States v. Long Soldier, 562 F.2 1989Circumstances indicating good faith and the absence of subterfuge in these exceptional cases have included the facts that the witness’s testimony was extensive and vital to the government’s case, United States v. DeLillo, 620 F. 2d 939 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 835 , 66 L.Ed. 2d 41 (1980); that the party calling the witness was genuinely surprised by his reversal, United States v. Webster, 734 F. 2d 1191 ; or that the trial court followed the introduction of the statement with an effective limiting instruction, DeLillo, 620 F. 2d 939 ; United States v. Long Soldier, 562 F. 2d 601 (8th | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Independent Order of Foresters v. Bier
green
2 sentences1989Circumstances indicating good faith and the absence of subterfuge in these exceptional cases have included the facts that the witness's testimony was extensive and vital to the government's case, United States v. DeLillo, 620 F.2d 939 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 835 , 101 S.Ct. 107 , 66 L.Ed.2d 41 (1980); that the party calling the witness was genuinely surprised by his reversal, United States v. Webster, 734 F.2d 1191 ; or that the trial court followed the introduction of the statement with an effective limiting instruction, DeLillo, 620 F.2d 939 ; United States v. Long Soldier, 562 F.2 1989Circumstances indicating good faith and the absence of subterfuge in these exceptional cases have included the facts that the witness’s testimony was extensive and vital to the government’s case, United States v. DeLillo, 620 F. 2d 939 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 835 , 66 L.Ed. 2d 41 (1980); that the party calling the witness was genuinely surprised by his reversal, United States v. Webster, 734 F. 2d 1191 ; or that the trial court followed the introduction of the statement with an effective limiting instruction, DeLillo, 620 F. 2d 939 ; United States v. Long Soldier, 562 F. 2d 601 (8th | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Union Camp Corp. v. Seaboard Coast Line Railroad
green
1 sentence1989Circumstances indicating good faith and the absence of subterfuge in these exceptional cases have included the facts that the witness's testimony was extensive and vital to the government's case, United States v. DeLillo, 620 F.2d 939 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 835 , 101 S.Ct. 107 , 66 L.Ed.2d 41 (1980); that the party calling the witness was genuinely surprised by his reversal, United States v. Webster, 734 F.2d 1191 ; or that the trial court followed the introduction of the statement with an effective limiting instruction, DeLillo, 620 F.2d 939 ; United States v. Long Soldier, 562 F.2 | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Albernaz v. United States
green
2 sentences1989Circumstances indicating good faith and the absence of subterfuge in these exceptional cases have included the facts that the witness's testimony was extensive and vital to the government's case, United States v. DeLillo, 620 F.2d 939 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 835 , 101 S.Ct. 107 , 66 L.Ed.2d 41 (1980); that the party calling the witness was genuinely surprised by his reversal, United States v. Webster, 734 F.2d 1191 ; or that the trial court followed the introduction of the statement with an effective limiting instruction, DeLillo, 620 F.2d 939 ; United States v. Long Soldier, 562 F.2 1989Circumstances indicating good faith and the absence of subterfuge in these exceptional cases have included the facts that the witness’s testimony was extensive and vital to the government’s case, United States v. DeLillo, 620 F. 2d 939 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 835 , 66 L.Ed. 2d 41 (1980); that the party calling the witness was genuinely surprised by his reversal, United States v. Webster, 734 F. 2d 1191 ; or that the trial court followed the introduction of the statement with an effective limiting instruction, DeLillo, 620 F. 2d 939 ; United States v. Long Soldier, 562 F. 2d 601 (8th | 1 | 1989–1989 |
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.