7 North Carolina opinions name it 3 courts 1908–2023 2 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. Woolridgegreen2 sentences2023State v. Woolridge, 357 N.C. 544, 549-50 , 592 S.E.2d 191, 194 (2003). 2023State v. Woolridge, 357 N.C. 544, 549-50 , 592 S.E.2d 191, 194 (2003). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Vinesgreen2 sentences2020App. 147, 157 , 412 S.E.2d 156, 163 (1992) (holding that the prosecutor’s argument attacking the integrity of defense counsel was grossly improper but not sufficiently prejudicial to require a new trial). ii. 1999See State v. Vines, 105 N.C.App. 147 , 412 S.E.2d 156 (1992) (holding that the prosecutor's argument attacking the integrity of defense counsel was of such gross impropriety as to justify ex mero motu correction; however, in light of the strong and convincing case against the defendant we could not hold that the prosecutrix's improper comments were sufficiently prejudicial as to require a new trial). | 2 | 2 |
Superguide Corp. v. DIRECTV Enterprises, Inc.green1 sentence2015Avoiding a conflict and the appearance of impropriety are the best solutions.” March 25 Order and Opinion ¶ 49 (quoting Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enters., 141 F. Supp. 2d 616, 625 (W.D.N.C. 2001)). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Chemcraft Holdings Corp. v. Shayban
green
1 sentence2015Separate and apart from the technical application of the Rules of Professional Conduct to these facts, our courts have made clear that the Court’s overarching consideration on a motion to disqualify is to “prevent even the appearance of impropriety and thus resolve any and all doubts in favor of disqualification.” Id. (citation omitted). {49} Indeed, “the right of one to retain counsel of his choosing is secondary in importance to the Court’s duty to maintain the highest ethical standards of professional conduct to insure and preserve trust in the integrity of the bar. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
State v. . King
green
1 sentence1908State v. King, *194 86 N. C., 603 , does not conflict with the conclusion reached by us. | 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.