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 1908–1986 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 |
|---|---|---|
Green v. Stategreen2 sentences1978The exception allows impeachment “where the party calling the witness has been misled and surprised or entrapped to his prejudice.” State v. Pope, supra at 512 , 215 S.E. 2d at 144 , quoting Green v. State, 243 Md. 154, 157 , 220 A. 2d 544, 546 (1966). 1978The exception allows impeachment “where the party calling the witness has been misled and surprised or entrapped to his prejudice.” State v. Pope, supra at 512 , 215 S.E. 2d at 144 , quoting Green v. State, 243 Md. 154, 157 , 220 A. 2d 544, 546 (1966). | 2 | 2 |
Byrd D. Johnsongreen2 sentences1986Jur. 2d § 675, Constitutional Law (1979); see also Byrd v. Johnson, 220 N.C. 184 , 16 S.E. 2d 843 (1941). 1986Jur. 2d § 675, Constitutional Law (1979); see also Byrd v. Johnson, 220 N.C. 184 , 16 S.E. 2d 843 (1941). | 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. Pope
green
2 sentences1978Our Supreme Court, in State v. Pope, 287 N.C. 505 , 215 S.E. 2d 139 (1975), examined the generally recognized exception to the rule that the solicitor (or district attorney) may not impeach a State’s witness by evidence that the witness has made prior statements inconsistent with his testimony. 1978Our Supreme Court, in State v. Pope, 287 N.C. 505 , 215 S.E. 2d 139 (1975), examined the generally recognized exception to the rule that the solicitor (or district attorney) may not impeach a State’s witness by evidence that the witness has made prior statements inconsistent with his testimony. | 2 | 1977–1978 |
Thorpe v. Housing Authority of Durham
green
2 sentences1986Housing Authority v. Thorpe, 271 N.C. 468 , 157 S.E. 2d 147 (1967), rev’d on other grounds, 393 U.S. 268 , 21 L.Ed. 2d 474 , 89 S.Ct. 518 (1969); Cauble v. City of Asheville, 314 N.C. 598 , 336 S.E. 2d 59 (1985). 1986Housing Authority v. Thorpe, 271 N.C. 468 , 157 S.E. 2d 147 (1967), rev’d on other grounds, 393 U.S. 268 , 21 L.Ed. 2d 474 , 89 S.Ct. 518 (1969); Cauble v. City of Asheville, 314 N.C. 598 , 336 S.E. 2d 59 (1985). | 1 | 1986–1986 |
HOUSING AUTHORITY OF CITY OF DURHAM v. Thorpe
green
2 sentences1986Housing Authority v. Thorpe, 271 N.C. 468 , 157 S.E. 2d 147 (1967), rev’d on other grounds, 393 U.S. 268 , 21 L.Ed. 2d 474 , 89 S.Ct. 518 (1969); Cauble v. City of Asheville, 314 N.C. 598 , 336 S.E. 2d 59 (1985). 1986Housing Authority v. Thorpe, 271 N.C. 468 , 157 S.E. 2d 147 (1967), rev’d on other grounds, 393 U.S. 268 , 21 L.Ed. 2d 474 , 89 S.Ct. 518 (1969); Cauble v. City of Asheville, 314 N.C. 598 , 336 S.E. 2d 59 (1985). | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Cauble v. City of Asheville
green
2 sentences1986Housing Authority v. Thorpe, 271 N.C. 468 , 157 S.E. 2d 147 (1967), rev’d on other grounds, 393 U.S. 268 , 21 L.Ed. 2d 474 , 89 S.Ct. 518 (1969); Cauble v. City of Asheville, 314 N.C. 598 , 336 S.E. 2d 59 (1985). 1986Housing Authority v. Thorpe, 271 N.C. 468 , 157 S.E. 2d 147 (1967), rev’d on other grounds, 393 U.S. 268 , 21 L.Ed. 2d 474 , 89 S.Ct. 518 (1969); Cauble v. City of Asheville, 314 N.C. 598 , 336 S.E. 2d 59 (1985). | 1 | 1986–1986 |
State v. Green
green
2 sentences1975This corollary allows impeachment “where the party calling the witness has been misled and surprised or entrapped' to his prejudice.” Green v. State, 243 Md. 154, 157 , 220 A. 2d 544, 546 (1966) ; State v. Green, 71 Wash. 2d 372 , 428 P. 2d 540 (1967); 98 C.J.S., Witnesses § 578 c (1) (1957) ; 58 Am. 1975This corollary allows impeachment “where the party calling the witness has been misled and surprised or entrapped' to his prejudice.” Green v. State, 243 Md. 154, 157 , 220 A. 2d 544, 546 (1966) ; State v. Green, 71 Wash. 2d 372 , 428 P. 2d 540 (1967); 98 C.J.S., Witnesses § 578 c (1) (1957) ; 58 Am. | 1 | 1975–1975 |
Fields v. Tompkins-Johnston Plumbing Co.
green
2 sentences1959Fields v. Plumbing Co., 224 N.C. 841 , 32 S.E. 2d 623 ; 99 C.J.S., Workmen’s Compensation, Section 252; 58 Am. 1959Fields v. Plumbing Co., 224 N.C. 841 , 32 S.E. 2d 623 ; 99 C.J.S., Workmen’s Compensation, Section 252; 58 Am. | 1 | 1959–1959 |
Calhoun v. . Light Co.
neutral
2 sentences1943Calhoun v. Light Co., 216 N. C., 256 , 4 S. E. (2d), 858 . 1943Calhoun v. Light Co., 216 N. C., 256 , 4 S. E. (2d), 858 . | 1 | 1943–1943 |
Hahn v. Heath.
neutral
1 sentence1908Hahn v. Heath, 127 N. C., 27 ; Loftin v. Hines, supra. And it is also a generally recognized doctrine that parties, as between themselves, may by contract constitute and deal with growing crops as personalty. *552 Ewell on Fixtures (2d Ed.), pp. 370, 371, 372. | 1 | 1908–1908 |
Loftin v. . Hines
neutral
1 sentence1908Hahn v. Heath, 127 N. C., 27 ; Loftin v. Hines, supra. And it is also a generally recognized doctrine that parties, as between themselves, may by contract constitute and deal with growing crops as personalty. *552 Ewell on Fixtures (2d Ed.), pp. 370, 371, 372. | 1 | 1908–1908 |
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.