difference between challenge (North Carolina) · Go Syfert
← North Carolina issues

difference between challenge in North Carolina

7 North Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 2000–2023 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.

Followed or applied (4)

CaseFollowedCited
Frye v. City of Kannapolisgreen
ncmd · 1999 · cited in 2 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2016–2016
2 sentences

2016"The basic distinction is that an as-applied challenge represents a plaintiff's protest against how a statute was applied in the particular context in which plaintiff acted or proposed to act, while a facial challenge represents a plaintiff's contention that a statute is incapable of constitutional application in any context." Frye v. City of Kannapolis, 109 F.Supp.2d 436 , 439 (M.D.N.C.1999).

2016“The basic distinction is that an as-applied challenge represents a plaintiff’s protest against how a statute was applied in the particular context in which plaintiff acted or proposed to act, while a facial challenge represents a plaintiff’s contention that a statute is incapable of constitutional application in any context.” Frye v. City of Kannapolis, 109 F. Supp. 2d 436, 439 (M.D.N.C. 1999).

22
State v. Shackelfordgreen
ncctapp · 2019 · cited in 1 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2023–2023
2 sentences

2023“There is a difference between a challenge to the facial validity of a statute as opposed to a challenge to the statute as applied to a specific party.” State v. Shackelford, 264 N.C.

2023App. 542, 550 , 825 S.E.2d 689, 695 (2018) (brackets and citations omitted).

11
United States v. Ronald J. Goldberggreen
ca3 · 1995 · cited in 1 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2009–2009
1 sentence

2009In State v. Montgomery, we explained the difference between waiver and forfeiture of counsel: *102 “Unlike waiver, which requires a knowing and intentional relinquishment of a known right, forfeiture results in the loss of a right regardless of the defendant’s knowledge thereof and irrespective of whether the defendant intended to relinquish the right.” United States v. Goldberg, 67 F.3d 1092, 1100 (3d.

11
In Re the Estate of Parrishgreen
ncctapp · 2001 · cited in 1 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2002–2002
2 sentences

2002See Parrish, 143 N.C.App. at 253 , 547 S.E.2d at 79 (the recovery in a survival action goes to the estate whereas in a wrongful death action, it is distributed pursuant to the Intestate Succession Act).

2002See Parrish, 143 N.C.App. at 253 , 547 S.E.2d at 79 (the recovery in a survival action goes to the estate whereas in a wrongful death action, it is distributed pursuant to the Intestate Succession Act).

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in North Carolina. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (2)

CaseCitedYears
State v. Lofton green
ncctapp · 2018
1 sentence

2019App. at ----, 816 S.E.2d at 211 , this concern rests upon a failure to recognize the difference between a challenge to the facial validity of an indictment, which raises a jurisdictional issue, and a challenge to the trial court's instructions, which does not.

12019–2019
Petersen v. Rogers green
ncctapp · 1993
1 sentence

2000The Court placed special emphasis on the difference between inquiry into the ‘practices of a religion, and inquiry into the beliefs of a religion, and concluded that “the limited inquiry may touch upon the religious practices of the parties as they relate to the health and safety of the child, but such inquiry may not focus on the general beliefs and doctrines of a religion.” Id. (citation omitted) (emphasis added).

12000–2000

Where else courts name it

IL 33 (1905–2026) TX 32 (1925–2024) CA 23 (1912–2021) NY 21 (1856–2025) FL 16 (1929–2025) PA 14 (1922–2020) OK 14 (1941–2021) LA 13 (1932–2020) OR 12 (1933–2021) AL 12 (1974–2016) MD 12 (1943–2026) MI 12 (1969–2025) OH 11 (2000–2026) WA 11 (1912–2025) MS 10 (1933–2013) TN 10 (1889–2018) CO 8 (1995–2021) MO 8 (1922–2020) WI 8 (1903–2018) NC 7 (2000–2023) WY 6 (1975–2012) GA 6 (1934–2025) NJ 6 (1985–1999) IN 6 (1999–2026) ME 5 (1994–2020) RI 5 (1973–2016) DC 5 (1974–2024) NM 5 (1939–2018) CT 5 (1903–2016) MA 4 (1985–2011) KY 4 (1932–1938) MN 4 (2010–2024) IA 4 (2016–2026) NE 4 (1896–2019) WV 3 (1903–2007) AZ 3 (1982–2006) DE 3 (2000–2024) UT 3 (1981–2015) ND 3 (2007–2025) AR 3 (2004–2025) ID 3 (1913–2011) VA 3 (2000–2023) SC 2 (2005–2013) HI 2 (1960–2024) MT 2 (1991–2006)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check