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.
6 North Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1900–2008 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. Ramergreen2 sentences2008"A defendant's statement given after Miranda warnings is admissible if the defendant is fully aware of the nature of the rights being waived and the consequence of such a waiver." State v. Ramer, 146 N.C. 2008App. 611, 612 , 553 S.E.2d 238, 239 (2001). | 1 | 1 |
Moran v. Burbinegreen2 sentences2001The trial court found Defendant “was read the standard [Miranda] rights form [and] indicated that he understood that form.” The trial court then concluded the statement was “freely and voluntarily given.” A defendant’s statement given after Miranda warnings is admissible if the defendant is fully aware of the nature of the rights being waived and the consequence of such a waiver. 1 Moran v. Burbine, 475 U.S. 412, 421 , 89 L. 2001The trial court found Defendant “was read the standard [Miranda] rights form [and] indicated that he understood that form.” The trial court then concluded the statement was “freely and voluntarily given.” A defendant’s statement given after Miranda warnings is admissible if the defendant is fully aware of the nature of the rights being waived and the consequence of such a waiver. 1 Moran v. Burbine, 475 U.S. 412, 421 , 89 L. | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Brooks v. McWhirter Grading Co., Inc.
green
2 sentences1995Thus, to sustain a serious violation, the Commissioner must show (1) the violative condition created the possibility of an accident, (2) “a substantial probability that death or serious physical harm could result if an accident did occur” as a consequence of the violation, Id. at 584-86 , 281 S.E.2d at 31-32 , and (3) that either the employer knew or a reasonably prudent employer would have known that the violation existed. 1995Thus, to sustain a serious violation, the Commissioner must show (1) the violative condition created the possibility of an accident, (2) “a substantial probability that death or serious physical harm could result if an accident did occur” as a consequence of the violation, Id. at 584-86 , 281 S.E.2d at 31-32 , and (3) that either the employer knew or a reasonably prudent employer would have known that the violation existed. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
State v. Harris
green
2 sentences1956“In State v. Harris, 50 Minn. 128 , 52 N.W. 387, 388 , in holding that the revocation of a liquor license was not a punishment for the offense committed, the court said: ‘While the revocation by the court follows the conviction as a consequence of the violation of the ordinance, it has no more the purpose or effect of punishment than if the license were revoked by the mayor or city council, neither of whom would have the power to impose punishment for the offense. 1956“In State v. Harris, 50 Minn. 128 , 52 N.W. 387, 388 , in holding that the revocation of a liquor license was not a punishment for the offense committed, the court said: ‘While the revocation by the court follows the conviction as a consequence of the violation of the ordinance, it has no more the purpose or effect of punishment than if the license were revoked by the mayor or city council, neither of whom would have the power to impose punishment for the offense. | 1 | 1956–1956 |
Moore v. . Westbrook
neutral
1 sentence1952Vaughan v. Davenport, 157 N.C. 156 , 72 S.E. 842 . | 1 | 1952–1952 |
Vaughan v. . Moseley
neutral
1 sentence1952Vaughan v. Davenport, 157 N.C. 156 , 72 S.E. 842 . | 1 | 1952–1952 |
Holleman v. . Harward
neutral
1 sentence1900The same principle pertains to the relation of husband and' wife, and the consequence of its violation is illustrated in Holleman v. Harward, 119 N. C., 150 , where tire defendant was punished in damages for selling laudanum, etc., to the plaintiff’s wife, knowing that the use of the same habitually resulted in loss of companionship and services due the plaintiff from their marital relation. | 1 | 1900–1900 |
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.