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.
54 North Carolina opinions name it 3 courts 1904–2026 5 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 |
|---|---|---|
International Shoe Co. v. Washingtongreen2 sentences2007“In determining whether the exercise of personal jurisdiction comports with due process, the crucial inquiry is whether the defendant has ‘certain minimum contacts with [the forum state] such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.’ ” Id. (quoting International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 , 90 L. 2007“In determining whether the exercise of personal jurisdiction comports with due process, the crucial inquiry is whether the defendant has ‘certain minimum contacts with [the forum state] such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.’ ” Id. (quoting International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 , 90 L. | 4 | 5 |
State v. Austingreen2 sentences2025The crucial inquiry for this Court is admissibility and whether the ultimate ruling was supported by the evidence.” State v. Austin, 320 N.C. 276, 290 , 357 S.E.2d 641, 650 (1987) (citing State v. Blackwell, 246 N.C. 642, 644 , 99 S.E.2d 867, 869 (1957)). 2025The crucial inquiry for this Court is admissibility and whether the ultimate ruling was supported by the evidence.” State v. Austin, 320 N.C. 276, 290 , 357 S.E.2d 641, 650 (1987) (citing State v. Blackwell, 246 N.C. 642, 644 , 99 S.E.2d 867, 869 (1957)). | 3 | 9 |
Weaver v. Bennettgreen2 sentences2025See Lewis, 267 N.C. at 465 (“The crucial test . . . is whether he passes under the [alleged employer]’s right of control with regard not only to the work to be done but also to the manner of performing it.” (emphasis omitted) (quoting Weaver v. Bennett, 259 N.C. 16, 28 (1963))). 3. 2009See also Moody v. Kersey, 270 N.C. 614, 621 , 155 S.E.2d 215, 220-21 (1967) (“ ‘The crucial test in determining whether a servant furnished by one person to another becomes the employee of the person to whom he is loaned is whether he passes under the latter’s right of control with regard not only to the work to be done but also to the manner of performing it.’ ” (quoting Weaver v. Bennett, 259 N.C. 16, 28 , 129 S.E.2d 610, 618 (1963))); Wolfe v. *413 Wilmington Shipyard, Inc., 135 N.C. | 3 | 3 |
State v. Smithgreen2 sentences2018See Smith , 315 N.C. at 88 , 337 S.E.2d at 842 (stating spontaneity and stress are the crucial factors). 2018See Smith , 315 N.C. at 88 , 337 S.E.2d at 842 (stating spontaneity and stress are the crucial factors). | 3 | 3 |
State v. Bonegreen2 sentences2018The crucial inquiry for this Court is admissibility and whether the ultimate ruling was supported by the evidence." State v. Bone , 354 N.C. 1 , 8, 550 S.E.2d 482 , 486 (2001) (citation omitted). 2018The crucial inquiry for this Court is admissibility and whether the ultimate ruling was supported by the evidence." State v. Bone , 354 N.C. 1 , 8, 550 S.E.2d 482 , 486 (2001) (citation omitted). | 2 | 4 |
Phoenix America Corp. v. Brisseygreen2 sentences2005By not engaging in the due process analysis, the majority overlooks the rule that due process "is the crucial inquiry and the ultimate determinative factor in assessing whether jurisdiction may be asserted under the `long-arm' statute." Phoenix America Corp. v. Brissey, 46 N.C.App. 527, 530 , 265 S.E.2d 476, 479 (1980); see also, Chadbourn, Inc. v. Katz, 285 N.C. 700, 706 , 208 S.E.2d 676, 680 (1974) ("due process, and not the language of the statute, is the ultimate test of `long-arm' jurisdiction over a nonresident"). 2005By not engaging in the due process analysis, the majority overlooks the rule that due process "is the crucial inquiry and the ultimate determinative factor in assessing whether jurisdiction may be asserted under the `long-arm' statute." Phoenix America Corp. v. Brissey, 46 N.C.App. 527, 530 , 265 S.E.2d 476, 479 (1980); see also, Chadbourn, Inc. v. Katz, 285 N.C. 700, 706 , 208 S.E.2d 676, 680 (1974) ("due process, and not the language of the statute, is the ultimate test of `long-arm' jurisdiction over a nonresident"). | 2 | 3 |
Florida v. Bostickgreen2 sentences2019In determining whether there has been a show of authority by a law enforcement officer, “the crucial test is whether, taking into account all of the circumstances surrounding the encounter, the police conduct would have communicated to a reasonable person that he was not at liberty to ignore the police presence and go about his business.” Bostick, 501 U.S. at 437 , 115 L. 2019In determining whether there has been a show of authority by a law enforcement officer, “the crucial test is whether, taking into account all of the circumstances surrounding the encounter, the police conduct would have communicated to a reasonable person that he was not at liberty to ignore the police presence and go about his business.” Bostick, 501 U.S. at 437 , 115 L. | 2 | 2 |
Milliken v. Meyergreen2 sentences2004In determining whether the exercise of personal jurisdiction comports with due process, the crucial inquiry is whether the defendant has "certain minimum contacts with [the forum state] such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend `traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.'" International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 , 66 S.Ct. 154, 158 , 90 L.Ed. 95, 102 (1945) (quoting Milliken v. Meyer, 311 U.S. 457, 463 , 61 S.Ct. 339, 343 , 85 L.Ed. 278, 283 (1940), [ reh'g denied, 312 U.S. 712 , 61 S.Ct. 548 , 85 L.Ed. 1143 (1941)]). 2004In determining whether the exercise of personal jurisdiction comports with due process, the crucial inquiry is whether the defendant has "certain minimum contacts with [the forum state] such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend `traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.'" International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 , 66 S.Ct. 154, 158 , 90 L.Ed. 95, 102 (1945) (quoting Milliken v. Meyer, 311 U.S. 457, 463 , 61 S.Ct. 339, 343 , 85 L.Ed. 278, 283 (1940), [ reh'g denied, 312 U.S. 712 , 61 S.Ct. 548 , 85 L.Ed. 1143 (1941)]). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Blackwellgreen2 sentences2025The crucial inquiry for this Court is admissibility and whether the ultimate ruling was supported by the evidence.” State v. Austin, 320 N.C. 276, 290 , 357 S.E.2d 641, 650 (1987) (citing State v. Blackwell, 246 N.C. 642, 644 , 99 S.E.2d 867, 869 (1957)). 2025The crucial inquiry for this Court is admissibility and whether the ultimate ruling was supported by the evidence.” State v. Austin, 320 N.C. 276, 290 , 357 S.E.2d 641, 650 (1987) (citing State v. Blackwell, 246 N.C. 642, 644 , 99 S.E.2d 867, 869 (1957)). | 1 | 3 |
Terry v. Ohiogreen2 sentences2016The crucial inquiry is "whether a reasonably prudent man in the *765 circumstances would be warranted in the belief that his safety or that of others was in danger." Terry, 392 U.S. at 27 , 88 S.Ct. at 1883 , 20 L.Ed.2d at 909 (citations omitted). 2016The crucial inquiry is "whether a reasonably prudent man in the *765 circumstances would be warranted in the belief that his safety or that of others was in danger." Terry, 392 U.S. at 27 , 88 S.Ct. at 1883 , 20 L.Ed.2d at 909 (citations omitted). | 1 | 2 |
North Carolina State Ports Authority v. Lloyd A. Fry Roofing Co.green2 sentences2017App. 400 , 407–08, 232 S.E.2d 846, 852 (1977), aff’d, 294 N.C. 73 , 240 S.E.2d 345 (1978) (holding that a court may grant any relief to which a party is entitled, regardless of whether it has been demanded in the pleadings, for “it is not a crucial error to demand the wrong relief”). provision of the Securities Exchange Act.” Id. at *33. “[T]he elements of a cause of action under Rule 10b-5 include: (1) the making of a false statement or omission of material fact or the use of a fraudulent device in connection with the purchase or sale of any security; (2) made with scienter; (3) upon which th 2015App. 400 , 232 S.E.2d 846 (1977) (holding court may grant any relief to which a party is entitled, regardless of whether it has been demanded in the pleadings; “it is not a crucial error to demand the wrong relief”), affirmed, 294 N.C. 73 , 240 S.E.2d 345 (1978); Dixon v. Stuart, 85 N.C. | 1 | 2 |
Chadbourn, Inc. v. Katzgreen2 sentences2005By not engaging in the due process analysis, the majority overlooks the rule that due process "is the crucial inquiry and the ultimate determinative factor in assessing whether jurisdiction may be asserted under the `long-arm' statute." Phoenix America Corp. v. Brissey, 46 N.C.App. 527, 530 , 265 S.E.2d 476, 479 (1980); see also, Chadbourn, Inc. v. Katz, 285 N.C. 700, 706 , 208 S.E.2d 676, 680 (1974) ("due process, and not the language of the statute, is the ultimate test of `long-arm' jurisdiction over a nonresident"). 2005By not engaging in the due process analysis, the majority overlooks the rule that due process "is the crucial inquiry and the ultimate determinative factor in assessing whether jurisdiction may be asserted under the `long-arm' statute." Phoenix America Corp. v. Brissey, 46 N.C.App. 527, 530 , 265 S.E.2d 476, 479 (1980); see also, Chadbourn, Inc. v. Katz, 285 N.C. 700, 706 , 208 S.E.2d 676, 680 (1974) ("due process, and not the language of the statute, is the ultimate test of `long-arm' jurisdiction over a nonresident"). | 1 | 2 |
Lewis v. Barnhillgreen1 sentence2025See Lewis, 267 N.C. at 465 (“The crucial test . . . is whether he passes under the [alleged employer]’s right of control with regard not only to the work to be done but also to the manner of performing it.” (emphasis omitted) (quoting Weaver v. Bennett, 259 N.C. 16, 28 (1963))). 3. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Johnsongreen2 sentences2023“The crucial inquiry is ‘whether a reasonably prudent man in the circumstances would be warranted in the belief that his safety or that of others was in danger.’ ” State v. Johnson, 246 N.C. 2023App. 677, 693 , 783 S.E.2d 753, 764-65 (2016) (quoting Terry, 392 U.S. at 27 , 88 S. Ct. at 1883 , 20 L. | 1 | 1 |
Piazza v. Kirkbridegreen2 sentences2017App. 400 , 407–08, 232 S.E.2d 846, 852 (1977), aff’d, 294 N.C. 73 , 240 S.E.2d 345 (1978) (holding that a court may grant any relief to which a party is entitled, regardless of whether it has been demanded in the pleadings, for “it is not a crucial error to demand the wrong relief”). provision of the Securities Exchange Act.” Id. at *33. “[T]he elements of a cause of action under Rule 10b-5 include: (1) the making of a false statement or omission of material fact or the use of a fraudulent device in connection with the purchase or sale of any security; (2) made with scienter; (3) upon which th 2017App. 400 , 407–08, 232 S.E.2d 846, 852 (1977), aff’d, 294 N.C. 73 , 240 S.E.2d 345 (1978) (holding that a court may grant any relief to which a party is entitled, regardless of whether it has been demanded in the pleadings, for “it is not a crucial error to demand the wrong relief”). provision of the Securities Exchange Act.” Id. at *33. “[T]he elements of a cause of action under Rule 10b-5 include: (1) the making of a false statement or omission of material fact or the use of a fraudulent device in connection with the purchase or sale of any security; (2) made with scienter; (3) upon which th | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Sandersgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Dixon v. Stuartgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Ellison v. Ramosgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Nance v. Southern Railwaygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Mitchell v. Buddgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Moody v. Kerseygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Wolfe v. Wilmington Shipyard, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| Reid v. Ayersgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Griffingreen | 1 | 1 |
| Culler v. Hardygreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. . Stricklandgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Johnston v. Gilleygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Bell v. Wolfishgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Cantlay & Tanzola, Inc. v. Sennergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Jackson v. Stancilgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. McAllistergreen | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Austin v. North Carolina
green
2 sentences2017The crucial inquiry for this Court is admissibility and whether the ultimate ruling was supported by the evidence.” State v. Bone, 354 N.C. 1, 8 , 550 S.E.2d 482, 486 (2001) (quoting State v. Austin, 320 N.C. 276, 290 , 357 S.E.2d 641, 650 , cert. denied, 484 U.S. 916 , 98 L. 2017The crucial inquiry for this Court is admissibility and whether the ultimate ruling was supported by the evidence ." State v. Bone , 354 N.C. 1 , 8, 550 S.E.2d 482 , 486 (2001) (quoting State v. Austin , 320 N.C. 276 , 290, 357 S.E.2d 641 , 650, cert. denied , 484 U.S. 916 , 108 S.Ct. 267 , 98 L.Ed.2d 224 (1987) ) (emphasis supplied). " '[A] correct decision of a lower court will not be disturbed because a wrong or insufficient or superfluous reason is assigned.' *16 " State v. Dewalt , 190 N.C.App. 158 , 165, 660 S.E.2d 111 , 116 (quoting State v. Blackwell , 246 N.C. 642 , 644, 99 S.E.2d 867 | 3 | 2001–2017 |
Solek v. New Jersey Department of Public Advocate
green
2 sentences2017The crucial inquiry for this Court is admissibility and whether the ultimate ruling was supported by the evidence.” State v. Bone, 354 N.C. 1, 8 , 550 S.E.2d 482, 486 (2001) (quoting State v. Austin, 320 N.C. 276, 290 , 357 S.E.2d 641, 650 , cert. denied, 484 U.S. 916 , 98 L. 2017The crucial inquiry for this Court is admissibility and whether the ultimate ruling was supported by the evidence ." State v. Bone , 354 N.C. 1 , 8, 550 S.E.2d 482 , 486 (2001) (quoting State v. Austin , 320 N.C. 276 , 290, 357 S.E.2d 641 , 650, cert. denied , 484 U.S. 916 , 108 S.Ct. 267 , 98 L.Ed.2d 224 (1987) ) (emphasis supplied). " '[A] correct decision of a lower court will not be disturbed because a wrong or insufficient or superfluous reason is assigned.' *16 " State v. Dewalt , 190 N.C.App. 158 , 165, 660 S.E.2d 111 , 116 (quoting State v. Blackwell , 246 N.C. 642 , 644, 99 S.E.2d 867 | 3 | 2001–2017 |
North Carolina State Ports Authority v. Lloyd A. Fry Roofing Co.
green
2 sentences2017App. 400 , 407–08, 232 S.E.2d 846, 852 (1977), aff’d, 294 N.C. 73 , 240 S.E.2d 345 (1978) (holding that a court may grant any relief to which a party is entitled, regardless of whether it has been demanded in the pleadings, for “it is not a crucial error to demand the wrong relief”). provision of the Securities Exchange Act.” Id. at *33. “[T]he elements of a cause of action under Rule 10b-5 include: (1) the making of a false statement or omission of material fact or the use of a fraudulent device in connection with the purchase or sale of any security; (2) made with scienter; (3) upon which th 2017App. 400 , 407–08, 232 S.E.2d 846, 852 (1977), aff’d, 294 N.C. 73 , 240 S.E.2d 345 (1978) (holding that a court may grant any relief to which a party is entitled, regardless of whether it has been demanded in the pleadings, for “it is not a crucial error to demand the wrong relief”). provision of the Securities Exchange Act.” Id. at *33. “[T]he elements of a cause of action under Rule 10b-5 include: (1) the making of a false statement or omission of material fact or the use of a fraudulent device in connection with the purchase or sale of any security; (2) made with scienter; (3) upon which th | 2 | 2015–2017 |
Cameron v. New Hanover Memorial Hospital, Inc.
green
2 sentences2007Hosp., 58 N.C. 2000Id. | 2 | 2000–2007 |
Mature v. Angelo
green
2 sentences1991A servant is the employe of the person who has the right of controlling the manner of his performance of the work, irrespective of whether he actually exercises that control or not. (citations) ...." Weaver v. Bennet, 259 N.C. 16, 28 , 129 S.E.2d 610, 618 (1963) (quoting Mature v. Angelo, 373 Pa. 593 , 97 A.2d 59 (1953)). 1966Quoting with approval from Mature v. Angelo, 373 Pa. 593 , 97 A 2d 59, Bobbitt, J., said: “ 'The crucial test in determining whether a servant furnished by one person to another becomes the employe of the person to whom he is loaned is whether he passes under the latter’s right of control with regard not only to the work to be done but also to the manner of performing it * * * “ 'Where one is engaged in the business of renting out trucks, automobiles, cranes or any other machine, and furnishes a driver or operator as part of the hiring, there is a factual presumption that the operator remains | 2 | 1966–1991 |
State v. Jones
green
2 sentences1985Unless the evidence compels the finding of a certain factor, see State v. Jones, 309 N.C. 214 , 306 S.E.2d 451 (1983), the crucial test on appeal is not whether the finder of fact erred in actually making the finding, but whether there was sufficient evidence of the factor before the finder to allow consideration of the factor in the first place. 1985Unless the evidence compels the finding of a certain factor, see State v. Jones, 309 N.C. 214 , 306 S.E.2d 451 (1983), the crucial test on appeal is not whether the finder of fact erred in actually making the finding, but whether there was sufficient evidence of the factor before the finder to allow consideration of the factor in the first place. | 2 | 1985–1985 |
State v. Gardner
green
2 sentences2026“The crucial inquiry for this Court is admissibility and whether the ultimate ruling was supported by the evidence.” Id. 2026“The crucial inquiry for this Court is admissibility and whether the ultimate ruling was supported by the evidence.” Id. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
State v. McKinney
green
2 sentences2018"The 'fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine,' a specific application of the exclusionary rule, provides that '[w]hen evidence is obtained as the result of illegal police conduct, not only should that evidence be suppressed, but all evidence that is the "fruit" of that unlawful conduct should be suppressed.' " State v. McKinney , 361 N.C. 53 , 58, 637 S.E.2d 868 , 872 (2006) (quoting State v. Pope , 333 N.C. 106 , 113-14, 423 S.E.2d 740 , 744 (1992) ). 2018"The 'fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine,' a specific application of the exclusionary rule, provides that '[w]hen evidence is obtained as the result of illegal police conduct, not only should that evidence be suppressed, but all evidence that is the "fruit" of that unlawful conduct should be suppressed.' " State v. McKinney , 361 N.C. 53 , 58, 637 S.E.2d 868 , 872 (2006) (quoting State v. Pope , 333 N.C. 106 , 113-14, 423 S.E.2d 740 , 744 (1992) ). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Pope
green
2 sentences2018"The 'fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine,' a specific application of the exclusionary rule, provides that '[w]hen evidence is obtained as the result of illegal police conduct, not only should that evidence be suppressed, but all evidence that is the "fruit" of that unlawful conduct should be suppressed.' " State v. McKinney , 361 N.C. 53 , 58, 637 S.E.2d 868 , 872 (2006) (quoting State v. Pope , 333 N.C. 106 , 113-14, 423 S.E.2d 740 , 744 (1992) ). 2018"The 'fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine,' a specific application of the exclusionary rule, provides that '[w]hen evidence is obtained as the result of illegal police conduct, not only should that evidence be suppressed, but all evidence that is the "fruit" of that unlawful conduct should be suppressed.' " State v. McKinney , 361 N.C. 53 , 58, 637 S.E.2d 868 , 872 (2006) (quoting State v. Pope , 333 N.C. 106 , 113-14, 423 S.E.2d 740 , 744 (1992) ). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Garris
green
1 sentence2017The crucial inquiry for this Court is admissibility and whether the ultimate ruling was supported by the evidence ." State v. Bone , 354 N.C. 1 , 8, 550 S.E.2d 482 , 486 (2001) (quoting State v. Austin , 320 N.C. 276 , 290, 357 S.E.2d 641 , 650, cert. denied , 484 U.S. 916 , 108 S.Ct. 267 , 98 L.Ed.2d 224 (1987) ) (emphasis supplied). " '[A] correct decision of a lower court will not be disturbed because a wrong or insufficient or superfluous reason is assigned.' *16 " State v. Dewalt , 190 N.C.App. 158 , 165, 660 S.E.2d 111 , 116 (quoting State v. Blackwell , 246 N.C. 642 , 644, 99 S.E.2d 867 | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State v. DeWALT
neutral
1 sentence2017The crucial inquiry for this Court is admissibility and whether the ultimate ruling was supported by the evidence ." State v. Bone , 354 N.C. 1 , 8, 550 S.E.2d 482 , 486 (2001) (quoting State v. Austin , 320 N.C. 276 , 290, 357 S.E.2d 641 , 650, cert. denied , 484 U.S. 916 , 108 S.Ct. 267 , 98 L.Ed.2d 224 (1987) ) (emphasis supplied). " '[A] correct decision of a lower court will not be disturbed because a wrong or insufficient or superfluous reason is assigned.' *16 " State v. Dewalt , 190 N.C.App. 158 , 165, 660 S.E.2d 111 , 116 (quoting State v. Blackwell , 246 N.C. 642 , 644, 99 S.E.2d 867 | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Richardson v. United States
green
1 sentence2017The crucial inquiry for this Court is admissibility and whether the ultimate ruling was supported by the evidence ." State v. Bone , 354 N.C. 1 , 8, 550 S.E.2d 482 , 486 (2001) (quoting State v. Austin , 320 N.C. 276 , 290, 357 S.E.2d 641 , 650, cert. denied , 484 U.S. 916 , 108 S.Ct. 267 , 98 L.Ed.2d 224 (1987) ) (emphasis supplied). " '[A] correct decision of a lower court will not be disturbed because a wrong or insufficient or superfluous reason is assigned.' *16 " State v. Dewalt , 190 N.C.App. 158 , 165, 660 S.E.2d 111 , 116 (quoting State v. Blackwell , 246 N.C. 642 , 644, 99 S.E.2d 867 | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State v. DEWALT
green
2 sentences2017The crucial inquiry for this Court is admissibility and whether the ultimate ruling was supported by the evidence ." State v. Bone , 354 N.C. 1 , 8, 550 S.E.2d 482 , 486 (2001) (quoting State v. Austin , 320 N.C. 276 , 290, 357 S.E.2d 641 , 650, cert. denied , 484 U.S. 916 , 108 S.Ct. 267 , 98 L.Ed.2d 224 (1987) ) (emphasis supplied). " '[A] correct decision of a lower court will not be disturbed because a wrong or insufficient or superfluous reason is assigned.' *16 " State v. Dewalt , 190 N.C.App. 158 , 165, 660 S.E.2d 111 , 116 (quoting State v. Blackwell , 246 N.C. 642 , 644, 99 S.E.2d 867 2017The crucial inquiry for this Court is admissibility and whether the ultimate ruling was supported by the evidence ." State v. Bone , 354 N.C. 1 , 8, 550 S.E.2d 482 , 486 (2001) (quoting State v. Austin , 320 N.C. 276 , 290, 357 S.E.2d 641 , 650, cert. denied , 484 U.S. 916 , 108 S.Ct. 267 , 98 L.Ed.2d 224 (1987) ) (emphasis supplied). " '[A] correct decision of a lower court will not be disturbed because a wrong or insufficient or superfluous reason is assigned.' *16 " State v. Dewalt , 190 N.C.App. 158 , 165, 660 S.E.2d 111 , 116 (quoting State v. Blackwell , 246 N.C. 642 , 644, 99 S.E.2d 867 | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Robinson
green
2 sentences2016Furthermore, "[e]vidence of contraband, plainly felt during a pat-down or frisk, may ... be admissible," State v. Robinson, 189 N.C.App. 454 , 458-59, 658 S.E.2d 501 , 504 (2008), if its "contour or mass makes its identity immediately apparent [.]" Sanders, 112 N.C.App. at 482 , 435 S.E.2d at 845 (citation omitted). 2016Furthermore, "[e]vidence of contraband, plainly felt during a pat-down or frisk, may ... be admissible," State v. Robinson, 189 N.C.App. 454 , 458-59, 658 S.E.2d 501 , 504 (2008), if its "contour or mass makes its identity immediately apparent [.]" Sanders, 112 N.C.App. at 482 , 435 S.E.2d at 845 (citation omitted). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Walter v. Walter
green
1 sentence2016As we observed in Bodie , "[defendant] has not cited any cases, and we know of none, holding that a spouse is entitled to a 'credit' for post-separation payments made using marital funds." Id. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| Michigan v. Chesternut green | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| Filmar Racing, Inc. v. Stewart green | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| State v. Diehl green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| Tejal Vyas, LLC v. Carriage Park Ltd. Partnership green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| Wisconsin v. J. C. Penney Co. green | 1 | 2004–2004 |
| United States v. Appalachian Electric Power Co. green | 1 | 2004–2004 |
| Lawton v. South Bound R. R. green | 1 | 2004–2004 |
| State v. Hunt green | 1 | 2000–2000 |
| Intercraft Industries Corp. v. Morrison green | 1 | 1991–1991 |
| State v. Padilla green | 1 | 1985–1985 |
| Modern Globe, Inc. v. Spellman green | 1 | 1980–1980 |
| Griffin v. Illinois green | 1 | 1978–1978 |
| Britt v. North Carolina green | 1 | 1978–1978 |
| Coble v. Reap neutral | 1 | 1968–1968 |
| Aylor v. Barnes green | 1 | 1965–1965 |
| Hawkins v. . Hughes neutral | 1 | 1952–1952 |
| Eastern Cotton Oil Co. v. New Bern Oil & Fertilizer Co. neutral | 1 | 1952–1952 |
| Thompson v. . Herring neutral | 1 | 1952–1952 |
| Eastern Cotton Oil Co. v. New Bern Oil & Fertilizer Co. neutral | 1 | 1952–1952 |
| Murchison National Bank v. Broadhurst neutral | 1 | 1952–1952 |
| Flowers v. American Agricultural Chemical Co. green | 1 | 1931–1931 |
| Leisy v. Hardin green | 1 | 1904–1904 |
| Austin v. Tennessee green | 1 | 1904–1904 |
| Schollenberger v. Pennsylvania green | 1 | 1904–1904 |
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.