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 2 courts 1978–2016 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 |
|---|---|---|
Hartman v. Robertsongreen2 sentences2016Consequently, our Court has held that " evidence in a license revocation hearing ... is not subject to the exclusionary rule." Hartman v. Robertson, 208 N.C.App. 692 , 698, 703 S.E.2d 811 , 816 (2010) (citing Quick, 125 N.C.App. at 127 n. 3, 479 S.E.2d at 228-29 ). 2016Consequently, our Court has held that " evidence in a license revocation hearing ... is not subject to the exclusionary rule." Hartman v. Robertson, 208 N.C.App. 692 , 698, 703 S.E.2d 811 , 816 (2010) (citing Quick, 125 N.C.App. at 127 n. 3, 479 S.E.2d at 228-29 ). | 2 | 2 |
Quick v. North Carolina Division of Motor Vehiclesgreen2 sentences2016Consequently, our Court has held that " evidence in a license revocation hearing ... is not subject to the exclusionary rule." Hartman v. Robertson, 208 N.C.App. 692 , 698, 703 S.E.2d 811 , 816 (2010) (citing Quick, 125 N.C.App. at 127 n. 3, 479 S.E.2d at 228-29 ). 2016Consequently, our Court has held that " evidence in a license revocation hearing ... is not subject to the exclusionary rule." Hartman v. Robertson, 208 N.C.App. 692 , 698, 703 S.E.2d 811 , 816 (2010) (citing Quick, 125 N.C.App. at 127 n. 3, 479 S.E.2d at 228-29 ). | 1 | 2 |
Brower v. Killensgreen2 sentences2009We noted that “there is no legal distinction between probable cause to arrest in a criminal proceeding and ‘reasonable ground to believe’ that the accused was driving while impaired in a license revocation hearing.” Id. at 690 , 472 S.E.2d at 37 (citations omitted). 2009We noted that “there is no legal distinction between probable cause to arrest in a criminal proceeding and ‘reasonable ground to believe’ that the accused was driving while impaired in a license revocation hearing.” Id. at 690 , 472 S.E.2d at 37 (citations omitted). | 1 | 2 |
United States v. Janisgreen2 sentences2010App. at 127 n.3, 479 S.E.2d at 228-29 (declining to apply the exclusionary rule in a license revocation hearing because “[t]he United States Supreme Court has held that the exclusionary rule does not apply in the context of civil proceedings, United States v. Janis, 428 U.S. 433, 459-60 , 49 L. 2010App. at 127 n.3, 479 S.E.2d at 228-29 (declining to apply the exclusionary rule in a license revocation hearing because “[t]he United States Supreme Court has held that the exclusionary rule does not apply in the context of civil proceedings, United States v. Janis, 428 U.S. 433, 459-60 , 49 L. | 1 | 1 |
In Re the Revocation of the License of Gardnergreen1 sentence1996See Gardner, 39 N.C. | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Grady v. North Carolina
green
2 sentences2016Prior to Grady v. North Carolina, 575 U.S. ----, 135 S.Ct. 1368 , 191 L.Ed.2d 459 (2015), *663 our Court noted this impasse, stating, "unless our Supreme Court holds otherwise the Fourth Amendment's exclusionary rule does not apply in civil proceedings such as driver's license revocation hearings...." Combs v. Robertson, --- N.C.App. ----, ----, 767 S.E.2d 925 (2015). 2016Prior to Grady v. North Carolina, 575 U.S. ----, 135 S.Ct. 1368 , 191 L.Ed.2d 459 (2015), *663 our Court noted this impasse, stating, "unless our Supreme Court holds otherwise the Fourth Amendment's exclusionary rule does not apply in civil proceedings such as driver's license revocation hearings...." Combs v. Robertson, --- N.C.App. ----, ----, 767 S.E.2d 925 (2015). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Elmore v. Lanier
green
2 sentences1978In Elmore v. Lanier, 270 N.C. 674 , 155 S.E. 2d 114 (1967) the Commissioner of Insurance, acting under the authority of G.S. 58-42, notified plaintiff on 25 January 1967 that it was instituting a proceeding to revoke his license to sell insurance. 1978In Elmore v. Lanier, 270 N.C. 674 , 155 S.E. 2d 114 (1967) the Commissioner of Insurance, acting under the authority of G.S. 58-42, notified plaintiff on 25 January 1967 that it was instituting a proceeding to revoke his license to sell insurance. | 1 | 1978–1978 |
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.