7 North Carolina opinions name it 3 courts 1956–2019 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. Atkinsongreen2 sentences2019App. 683, 685 , 277 S.E.2d 464, 465 (1981) (holding that defendant “did not meet his burden of showing sufficient facts entitling him to a withdrawal of the waiver of right to counsel” made on the day of trial where he had previously indicated on multiple occasions that he was waiving his right to counsel). 7 See State v. Blakeney, 245 N.C. 2008On the other hand, the defendant bears the “burden of showing sufficient facts entitling him to a withdrawal of the waiver of right to counsel[.]” State v. Atkinson, 51 N.C. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Blakeneygreen2 sentences2019App. 683, 685 , 277 S.E.2d 464, 465 (1981) (holding that defendant “did not meet his burden of showing sufficient facts entitling him to a withdrawal of the waiver of right to counsel” made on the day of trial where he had previously indicated on multiple occasions that he was waiving his right to counsel). 7 See State v. Blakeney, 245 N.C. 2019App. 452, 463 , 782 S.E.2d 88, 95 (2016) (holding that a trial court should have granted a defendant’s motion to continue in order to hire an attorney, “even if 2 STATE V. | 1 | 1 |
Howell v. Howellgreen2 sentences2017Howell v. Howell, 321 N.C. 87, 91 , 361 S.E.2d 585, 588 (1987) (“The rule empowers the court to set aside or modify a final judgment, order or proceeding whenever such action is necessary to do justice under the circumstances. 2017Howell v. Howell, 321 N.C. 87, 91 , 361 S.E.2d 585, 588 (1987) (“The rule empowers the court to set aside or modify a final judgment, order or proceeding whenever such action is necessary to do justice under the circumstances. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Berrygreen2 sentences2014The defendant in Berry was indicted for first degree murder and subsequently filed a notice of his intent to pursue a defense of insanity. 356 N.C. at 494, 497 , 573 S.E.2d at 137, 139 . 2014The defendant in Berry was indicted for first degree murder and subsequently filed a notice of his intent to pursue a defense of insanity. 356 N.C. at 494, 497 , 573 S.E.2d at 137, 139 . | 1 | 1 |
Gamble v. Stategreen2 sentences1998Relying on Gamble v. State, 257 Ga. 325, 327 , 357 S.E.2d 792, 795 (1987), defendant argues that in light of the finding of racial discrimination in the strike of Mr. McKinney, the trial court erred in not finding racial discrimination in the strike of Mr. Greene as well. 1998Relying on Gamble v. State, 257 Ga. 325, 327 , 357 S.E.2d 792, 795 (1987), defendant argues that in light of the finding of racial discrimination in the strike of Mr. McKinney, the trial court erred in not finding racial discrimination in the strike of Mr. Greene as well. | 1 | 1 |
Cherry v. Commonwealthgreen1 sentence1956See, also, Cherry v. Commonwealth, 78 Va. 375 . | 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Watts
neutral
1 sentence1981App. 379 , 219 S.E. 2d 277 (1975); State v. Watts, 32 N.C. | 1 | 1981–1981 |
State v. Smith
green
2 sentences1981Defendant did not meet his burden of showing sufficient facts entitling him to a withdrawal of the waiver of right to counsel, nor did he show good cause for delay, and the court correctly refused to entertain his dilatory tactics further. 1 See State v. Smith, 27 N.C. 1981App. 379 , 219 S.E. 2d 277 (1975); State v. Watts, 32 N.C. | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Davis v. Commonwealth
neutral
1 sentence1956“In Davis v. Commonwealth, 75 Va. 944, 946 , this court held that the revocation of a license to sell intoxicating liquors because of an offense for which the licensee had been convicted was not a punishment for the offense, but was simply the withdrawal of the privilege which the State had granted the licensee to carry on a legitimate business. | 1 | 1956–1956 |
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.