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.
7 North Carolina opinions name it 1 courts 1989–2026 4 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. Thaggardgreen2 sentences2026App. 263, 273 (2005) (citation omitted). “‘Opening the door’ is the principle where one party introduces evidence of a particular fact and the opposing party may introduce evidence to explain or rebut it, even though the rebuttal evidence would be incompetent or irrelevant, if offered initially.” Id. 2025App. 263, 273 (2005) (citation omitted). “‘Opening the door’ is the principle where one party introduces evidence of a particular fact and the opposing party may introduce evidence to explain or rebut it, even though the rebuttal evidence would be incompetent or irrelevant, if offered initially.” Id. (citation omitted). | 3 | 5 |
State v. Garnergreen2 sentences2012App. 263, 273 , 608 S.E.2d 774, 782 (2005). “ ‘Opening the door’ is the principle where one party introduces evidence of a particular fact and the opposing party may introduce evidence to explain or rebut it, even though the rebuttal evidence would be incompetent or irrelevant, if offered initially.” Id. “ ‘[T]he law wisely permits evidence not otherwise admissible to be offered to explain or rebut evidence elicited by the defendant himself.’ ” State v. Garner, 330 N.C. 273, 290 , 410 S.E.2d 861, 870 (1991) (alteration in original) (quoting State v. Albert, 303 N.C. 173, 177 , 277 S.E.2d 439, 2012App. 263, 273 , 608 S.E.2d 774, 782 (2005). “ ‘Opening the door’ is the principle where one party introduces evidence of a particular fact and the opposing party may introduce evidence to explain or rebut it, even though the rebuttal evidence would be incompetent or irrelevant, if offered initially.” Id. “ ‘[T]he law wisely permits evidence not otherwise admissible to be offered to explain or rebut evidence elicited by the defendant himself.’ ” State v. Garner, 330 N.C. 273, 290 , 410 S.E.2d 861, 870 (1991) (alteration in original) (quoting State v. Albert, 303 N.C. 173, 177 , 277 S.E.2d 439, | 1 | 1 |
State v. Albertgreen2 sentences2012App. 263, 273 , 608 S.E.2d 774, 782 (2005). “ ‘Opening the door’ is the principle where one party introduces evidence of a particular fact and the opposing party may introduce evidence to explain or rebut it, even though the rebuttal evidence would be incompetent or irrelevant, if offered initially.” Id. “ ‘[T]he law wisely permits evidence not otherwise admissible to be offered to explain or rebut evidence elicited by the defendant himself.’ ” State v. Garner, 330 N.C. 273, 290 , 410 S.E.2d 861, 870 (1991) (alteration in original) (quoting State v. Albert, 303 N.C. 173, 177 , 277 S.E.2d 439, 2012App. 263, 273 , 608 S.E.2d 774, 782 (2005). “ ‘Opening the door’ is the principle where one party introduces evidence of a particular fact and the opposing party may introduce evidence to explain or rebut it, even though the rebuttal evidence would be incompetent or irrelevant, if offered initially.” Id. “ ‘[T]he law wisely permits evidence not otherwise admissible to be offered to explain or rebut evidence elicited by the defendant himself.’ ” State v. Garner, 330 N.C. 273, 290 , 410 S.E.2d 861, 870 (1991) (alteration in original) (quoting State v. Albert, 303 N.C. 173, 177 , 277 S.E.2d 439, | 1 | 1 |
Mims v. Wrightgreen2 sentences2010Id. at 342-43, 578 S.E.2d at 609 (emphasis added). 2010Id. at 342-43, 578 S.E.2d at 609 (emphasis added). | 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. Degree
green
2 sentences1989This question was recently addressed against defendant in State v. Degree, 322 N.C. 302 , 367 S.E. 2d 679 (1988). 1989This question was recently addressed against defendant in State v. Degree, 322 N.C. 302 , 367 S.E. 2d 679 (1988). | 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.