7 North Carolina opinions name it 1 courts 1997–2003 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Gaithergreen2 sentences2003The actual issue to be decided is not whether the motion in limine should have been granted, but rather whether the evidence was properly admitted at trial: “[W]hen a party purports to appeal the granting or denying of a motion in limine following the entry of a final judgment, the issue on appeal is not actually whether the granting or denying of the motion in limine was error, as that issue is not appealable, but instead ‘whether the evidentiary rulings of the trial court, made during the trial, are error.’ ” State v. Gaither, 148 N.C. 2002In Gaither , we stated that when a party appeals the denial of a motion in limine following the entry of a final judgment, “the issue on appeal is not actually whether the granting or denying of the motion in limine was error, as that issue is not appealable, but instead ‘whether the evidentiary rulings of the trial court, made during the trial, are error.’ ” Gaither, 148 N.C. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Lockleargreen2 sentences2003App. 534, 539 , 559 S.E.2d 212, 215-16 (2002) (quoting State v. Locklear, 145 N.C. 2002Furthermore, an objection to an order granting or denying a motion in limine “is insufficient to preserve for appeal the question of the admissibility of evidence.” In order to preserve the issue for appeal, “[a] party objecting to an order granting or denying a motion in limine... is required to object to the evidence at the time it is offered at the trial (where the motion was denied) or attempt to introduce the evidence at the trial (where the motion was granted).” Thus, when a party purports to appeal the granting or denying of a motion in limine following the entry of a final judgment, th | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in North Carolina. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
T&T Development Co. v. Southern National Bank of South Carolina
green
2 sentences2001Thus, when a party purports to appeal the granting or denying of a motion in limine following the entry of a final judgment, the issue on appeal is not actually whether the granting or denying of the motion in limine was error, as that issue is not appealable, but instead “whether the evidentiary rulings of the trial court, made during the trial, are error.” Id. at 602-03 , 481 S.E.2d at 349 . 2001Thus, when a party purports to appeal the granting or denying of a motion in limine following the entry of a final judgment, the issue on appeal is not actually whether the granting or denying of the motion in limine was error, as that issue is not appealable, but instead “whether the evidentiary rulings of the trial court, made during the trial, are error.” Id. at 602-03 , 481 S.E.2d at 349 . | 3 | 1997–2002 |
Southern Furniture Hardware, Inc. v. Branch Banking & Trust Co.
green
1 sentence2000Id. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
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.