mechanical test (North Carolina) · Go Syfert
← North Carolina issues

mechanical test in North Carolina

7 North Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1984–2016 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.

Followed or applied (5)

CaseFollowedCited
Douglas D. Chappee v. George Vosegreen
ca1 · 1988 · cited in 1 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2006–2006
1 sentence

2006Chappee v. Vose, 843 F.2d 25, 29 (1st Cir. 1988) (citing Taylor, 484 U.S. at 414-15 , 98 L.

11
International Shoe Co. v. Washingtongreen
scotus · 1945 · cited in 1 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2005–2005
2 sentences

2005For the exercise of personal jurisdiction to comport with the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 , 66 S.Ct. 154 , 90 L.Ed. 95, 102 (1945), a non-resident defendant must have minimum contacts with the forum state so as not to offend "traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice." It is a well-settled principle that the determination of minimum contacts with the forum is not calculated by a mechanical test, but rather it varies depending on the facts of the particular case.

2005For the exercise of personal jurisdiction to comport with the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 , 66 S.Ct. 154 , 90 L.Ed. 95, 102 (1945), a non-resident defendant must have minimum contacts with the forum state so as not to offend "traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice." It is a well-settled principle that the determination of minimum contacts with the forum is not calculated by a mechanical test, but rather it varies depending on the facts of the particular case.

11
Dillon v. Numismatic Funding Corp.green
nc · 1977 · cited in 1 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2005–2005
2 sentences

2005Dillon v. Numismatic Funding Corp., 291 N.C. 674, 679 , 231 S.E.2d 629, 632 (1977).

2005Dillon v. Numismatic Funding Corp., 291 N.C. 674, 679 , 231 S.E.2d 629, 632 (1977).

11
Price v. Seaboard Air Line Railroad Co.green
nc · 1968 · cited in 1 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 1994–1994
2 sentences

1994See Dixon v. CSX Transp., Inc., 990 F.2d 1440 , 1449, 1453 (1993) (Where the crossing is “extrahazardous,” mechanical warnings may be required.); Price v. Seaboard R.R., 274 N.C. 32, 45-46 , 161 S.E.2d 590, 600 (1968) (Mechanical warnings are ordinarily required only where the crossing is so dangerous that a prudent person cannot use it unless there are extraordinary protective devices.).

1994See Dixon v. CSX Transp., Inc., 990 F.2d 1440 , 1449, 1453 (1993) (Where the crossing is “extrahazardous,” mechanical warnings may be required.); Price v. Seaboard R.R., 274 N.C. 32, 45-46 , 161 S.E.2d 590, 600 (1968) (Mechanical warnings are ordinarily required only where the crossing is so dangerous that a prudent person cannot use it unless there are extraordinary protective devices.).

11
Dixon v. Csx Transportation, Incorporatedgreen
ca4 · 1993 · cited in 1 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 1994–1994
1 sentence

1994See Dixon v. CSX Transp., Inc., 990 F.2d 1440 , 1449, 1453 (1993) (Where the crossing is “extrahazardous,” mechanical warnings may be required.); Price v. Seaboard R.R., 274 N.C. 32, 45-46 , 161 S.E.2d 590, 600 (1968) (Mechanical warnings are ordinarily required only where the crossing is so dangerous that a prudent person cannot use it unless there are extraordinary protective devices.).

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 (4)

CaseCitedYears
Jasubhai Desai v. Raymond Booker green
ca6 · 2013
2 sentences

2016Rather, the unifying principle is that these factors relate to whether the child declarant was particularly likely to be telling the truth when the statement was made. " (emphasis added)), overruling recognized by Desai v. Booker, 732 F.3d 628 (6th Cir.2013).

2016Rather, the unifying principle is that these factors relate to whether the child declarant was particularly likely to be telling the truth when the statement was made.” (emphasis added)), overruling recognized by Desai v. Booker, 732 F.3d 628 (6th Cir. 2013). - 26 - STATE V.

22016–2016
Taylor v. Illinois green
scotus · 1988
2 sentences

2014Ed. 2d. 798, 108 S. Ct. 646 (1988), to be considered in determining the appropriate sanction, consistent with that constitutional right, when a defendant has failed to disclose a witness: “Although the Taylor Court declined to cast a mechanical standard to govern all possible cases, it established that, as a general matter, the trial judge (in deciding which sanction to impose) must weigh the defendant’s right to compulsory process against the countervailing public interests: (1) the integrity of the adversary process, (2) the interest in the fair and efficient administration of justice, and (

2006Chappee v. Vose, 843 F.2d 25, 29 (1st Cir. 1988) (citing Taylor, 484 U.S. at 414-15 , 98 L.

22006–2014
Alaska Steamship Co. v. Petterson green
scotus · 1954
1 sentence

2006Chappee v. Vose, 843 F.2d 25, 29 (1st Cir. 1988) (citing Taylor, 484 U.S. at 414-15 , 98 L.

12006–2006
United States v. Millard Robert Beasley, Defendnat-Appellant green
ca6 · 1971
2 sentences

1984The Court responded that: [T]here could have been nothing accusatorial in the technician's testimony that he properly performed the mechanical test of "bringing out" the latent prints on the note paper; therefore he was not a witness "against" the Appellant, and the Sixth Amendment guarantee of confrontation *324 and cross examination does not apply. 438 F.2d at 1281 .

1984The Court responded that: [T]here could have been nothing accusatorial in the technician’s testimony that he properly performed the mechanical test of “bringing out” the latent prints on the note paper; therefore he was not a witness “against” the Appellant, and the Sixth Amendment guarantee of confrontation and cross examination does not apply. 438 F. 2d at 1281 .

11984–1984

Statutes the citing opinions construe

NC § N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1 (3)

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.

Where else courts name it

CA 38 (1955–2025) PA 30 (1958–2016) MN 29 (1983–2018) IN 22 (1946–2025) IL 22 (1957–2020) WA 21 (1965–2024) NJ 20 (1976–2025) NY 18 (1948–2021) TX 11 (1923–2016) NM 11 (1988–2018) CT 8 (1985–2022) WI 8 (1968–2023) FL 8 (1983–2022) SC 8 (1997–2021) MD 8 (1972–2004) AZ 7 (1961–2011) ID 7 (1975–2002) NC 7 (1984–2016) CO 7 (1976–2025) MI 7 (1966–2009) OH 6 (1999–2018) OR 6 (1976–2014) LA 6 (1973–1989) NH 6 (1982–2025) HI 5 (1982–2007) MO 5 (1977–2007) AR 4 (1981–2008) DE 4 (1973–2021) NE 4 (1989–2025) WY 3 (1983–2011) MT 3 (2009–2014) WV 3 (1980–1982) MS 3 (1966–2024) AK 3 (1977–2026) ND 3 (1974–2007) UT 2 (1996–1996) GA 2 (2021–2023) RI 2 (1987–1989) MA 2 (1986–2009) IA 2 (1980–2015) SD 2 (1997–2001) ME 2 (1998–2025) KY 2 (1974–1978) OK 2 (1980–1994) KS 2 (1937–2011)

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