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.
9 North Carolina opinions name it 1 courts 1989–2026 1 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. Catoegreen2 sentences2012Furthermore, an appellant may not argue error on appeal if his “underlying objection fails to present the nature of the alleged error to the trial court.” State v. Catoe, 78 N.C. 2009App. 167, 168 , 336 S.E.2d 691, 692 (1985), disc. review denied, 316 N.C. 380 , 344 S.E.2d 1 (1986) (holding that the defendant may not argue a particular alleged error "on appeal where the underlying objection fails to present the nature of the alleged error to the trial court[.]" This rule "serves to facilitate proper rulings and to enable opposing counsel to take proper corrective measures to avoid retrial"). | 3 | 3 |
In re the Appeal by McCrarygreen2 sentences2026Our standard of review here “depends upon the nature of the alleged error.” In re McCrary, 112 N.C. App. 161 , 166 (1993). 2002The proper standard of review for the trial court to apply “in reviewing an agency decision depends upon the nature of the alleged error.” Id. | 1 | 3 |
State v. Edwardsgreen2 sentences2015Error may not be argued on appeal where the underlying objection fails to present the nature of the alleged error to the trial court.”), disc. review denied, 316 N.C. 380 , 344 S.E.2d 1 (1986). 2015Error may not be argued on appeal where the underlying objection fails to present the nature of the alleged error to the trial court.”), disc. review denied, 316 N.C. 380 , 344 S.E.2d 1 (1986). | 1 | 3 |
County of Wake v. North Carolina Department of Environment & Natural Resourcesgreen1 sentence2026In determining this proper standard, we find it necessary to briefly revisit the three theoretical possibilities in hierarchical order: (1) a de novo review for any “errors of law,” id., (2) the “whole-record” test that “examine[s] all competent evidence,” County of Wake v. N.C. Dep’t of ENR, 155 N.C. App. 225, 233 (2002) (emphasis added), and (3) an “abuse-of-discretion” test that merely looks for “any competent evidence,” Beightol v. Beightol, 90 N.C. App. 58, 60 (1988) (emphasis added). a. | 1 | 1 |
Beightol v. Beightolgreen1 sentence2026In determining this proper standard, we find it necessary to briefly revisit the three theoretical possibilities in hierarchical order: (1) a de novo review for any “errors of law,” id., (2) the “whole-record” test that “examine[s] all competent evidence,” County of Wake v. N.C. Dep’t of ENR, 155 N.C. App. 225, 233 (2002) (emphasis added), and (3) an “abuse-of-discretion” test that merely looks for “any competent evidence,” Beightol v. Beightol, 90 N.C. App. 58, 60 (1988) (emphasis added). a. | 1 | 1 |
Dorsey v. UNC-WILMINGTONgreen2 sentences2003Standard of Review When reviewing appeals from an administrative agency, "the proper standard of review to be employed by the [trial] court depends upon the nature of the alleged error." Dorsey v. UNC-Wilmington, 122 N.C.App. 58, 62 , 468 S.E.2d 557, 559 (1996) (quoting Amanini v. N.C. 2003Standard of Review When reviewing appeals from an administrative agency, "the proper standard of review to be employed by the [trial] court depends upon the nature of the alleged error." Dorsey v. UNC-Wilmington, 122 N.C.App. 58, 62 , 468 S.E.2d 557, 559 (1996) (quoting Amanini v. N.C. | 1 | 1 |
Amanini v. N.C. Department of Human Resourcesgreen2 sentences2003Dept. of Human Resources, 114 N.C.App. 668, 674 , 443 S.E.2d 114, 118 (1994)). 2003Dept. of Human Resources, 114 N.C.App. 668, 674 , 443 S.E.2d 114, 118 (1994)). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Skinner v. North Carolina Department of Correction
green
1 sentence2005Id. ; Dixie Lumber Co. of Cherryville v. N.C. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
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.