next assignment error (North Carolina) · Go Syfert
← North Carolina issues

next assignment error in North Carolina

7 North Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1926–1999 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 (2)

CaseFollowedCited
Wainwright v. Wittgreen
scotus · 1985 · cited in 1 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 1999–1999
2 sentences

1999The test for determining when a juror may be excused for cause is whether his views “would ‘prevent or substantially impair the performance of his duties as a juror in accordance with his instructions and his oath.’ ” Wainwright v. Witt, 469 U.S. 412, 424 , 83 L.

1999The test for determining when a juror may be excused for cause is whether his views “would ‘prevent or substantially impair the performance of his duties as a juror in accordance with his instructions and his oath.’ ” Wainwright v. Witt, 469 U.S. 412, 424 , 83 L.

11
State v. Hennisgreen
nc · 1988 · cited in 1 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 1998–1998
2 sentences

1998“Whether the use of photographic evidence is more probative than prejudicial and what constitutes an excessive number of photographs in the light of the illustrative value of each likewise lies within the discretion of the trial court.” State v. Hennis, 323 N.C. 279, 285 , 372 S.E.2d 523, 527 (1988).

1998“Whether the use of photographic evidence is more probative than prejudicial and what constitutes an excessive number of photographs in the light of the illustrative value of each likewise lies within the discretion of the trial court.” State v. Hennis, 323 N.C. 279, 285 , 372 S.E.2d 523, 527 (1988).

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
State v. . Shelly green
· 1887
2 sentences

1926I further instruct you, gentlemen, that if an assault is of such nature as to damage greatly the person of the party assaulted, or if it is calculated to outrage, stir up and disturb the quiet and good order of a community, or shock the moral sense of good citizens, it is serious damage.” To sustain the latter part of the charge, Mr. Nash refers to S. v. Huntley, 91 N. C., at p. 621; S. v. Shelly, 98 N. C., 673 , which seem to bear out the State’s contention.

1926I further instruct you, gentlemen, that if an assault is of such nature as to damage greatly the person of the party assaulted, or if it is calculated to outrage, stir up and disturb the quiet and good order of a community, or shock the moral sense of good citizens, it is serious damage." To sustain the latter part of the charge, Mr. Nash refers to S. v. Huntley , 91 N.C. at p. 621; S. v. Shelly , 98 N.C. 673 , which seem to bear out the State's contention.

21926–1926
Anders v. California green
scotus · 1967
2 sentences

1996In the next assignment of error, the defendant’s appellate counsel says that he brings a question forward under his duty under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 , 18 L.

1996In the next assignment of error, the defendant’s appellate counsel says that he brings a question forward under his duty under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 , 18 L.

11996–1996
Humphries v. City of Jacksonville green
nc · 1980
1 sentence

1986Humphries v. City of Jacksonville, supra. IV The next assignment of error brought forward by defendant concerns the valuation of several properties.

11986–1986
Wachovia Bank & Trust Co., NA v. Smith neutral
ncctapp · 1974
1 sentence

1980In Wachovia Bank & Trust Co. v. Smith, 24 N.C.

11980–1980

Where else courts name it

OK 25 (1908–1986) WV 20 (1894–2017) MS 17 (1923–2014) OH 15 (1932–2025) SC 14 (1907–1952) MO 14 (1890–1966) AR 13 (1919–1992) LA 12 (1938–2004) OR 11 (1893–1982) NE 10 (1894–2023) CA 9 (1912–1963) WA 8 (1909–2024) VA 8 (1887–1940) NC 7 (1926–1999) IL 6 (1950–1992) KS 5 (1896–1936) SD 4 (1892–1978) CT 4 (1963–1988) TN 4 (1897–1966) MI 4 (1914–1976) TX 4 (1892–1952) AL 4 (1906–1970) AZ 4 (1926–1965) PA 3 (1861–1979) NM 3 (1937–1983) IA 2 (1898–1947) MA 2 (1931–1975) NJ 2 (1911–1951) MD 2 (1967–1993)

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