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 3 courts 1984–2004 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 |
|---|---|---|
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.green2 sentences2000However, in Daubert the Court considered the language of Rule 702 and found that the drafters of the Federal Rules did not intend to incorporate the Frye test into the standard for admissibility of expert testimony. 509 U.S. at 587 . 2000However, in Daubert the Court considered the language of Rule 702 and found that the drafters of the Federal Rules did not intend to incorporate the Frye test into the standard for admissibility of expert testimony. 509 U.S. at 587 . | 1 | 3 |
State v. Penningtongreen2 sentences2003See, e.g., Pennington, 327 N.C. at 98 , 393 S.E.2d at 852 (noting that North Carolina courts “do not adhere exclusively to the [Frye] formula ... that the method of proof ‘must be sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs.’ ” Rather, the Pennington Court, in analyzing North Carolina precedent, believed that “the inquiry underlying the Frye formula is one of the reliability of the scientific method rather than its popularity within a scientific community.”). 2003See, e.g., Pennington, 327 N.C. at 98 , 393 S.E.2d at 852 (noting that North Carolina courts “do not adhere exclusively to the [Frye] formula ... that the method of proof ‘must be sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs.’ ” Rather, the Pennington Court, in analyzing North Carolina precedent, believed that “the inquiry underlying the Frye formula is one of the reliability of the scientific method rather than its popularity within a scientific community.”). | 1 | 1 |
Frye v. United Statesred2 sentences1999Id. at 147 , 322 S.E.2d at 380 ; see Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. 1999Id. at 147 , 322 S.E.2d at 380 ; see Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. | 1 | 1 |
State v. MacKgreen2 sentences1984As the Mack court stated, “Under the Frye rule, the results of mechanical or scientific testing are not admissible unless the testing has developed or improved to the point where experts in the field widely share the view that the results are scientifically reliable as accurate.” 292 N.W. 2d at 768 (Minn. 1980). *531 Courts which adopt the view that hypnotically refreshed testimony is inadmissible reject both the notion that a witness’s having been hypnotized goes only to his credibility and the belief that the unreliability inherent in hypnosis can be eliminated or sufficiently curbed by foll 1984As the Mack court stated, “Under the Frye rule, the results of mechanical or scientific testing are not admissible unless the testing has developed or improved to the point where experts in the field widely share the view that the results are scientifically reliable as accurate.” 292 N.W. 2d at 768 (Minn. 1980). *531 Courts which adopt the view that hypnotically refreshed testimony is inadmissible reject both the notion that a witness’s having been hypnotized goes only to his credibility and the belief that the unreliability inherent in hypnosis can be eliminated or sufficiently curbed by foll | 1 | 1 |
State v. Wakefieldgreen2 sentences1984See State v. Wakefield, 263 N.W. 2d 76 (Minn. 1978) (considering the admissibility of polygraph results); State ex rel Trimble v. Hedman, 291 Minn. 442 , 192 N.W. 2d 432 (1971) (considering the admissibility of voice prints). 1984See State v. Wakefield, 263 N.W. 2d 76 (Minn. 1978) (considering the admissibility of polygraph results); State ex rel Trimble v. Hedman, 291 Minn. 442 , 192 N.W. 2d 432 (1971) (considering the admissibility of voice prints). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Foyegreen2 sentences1984In holding that the results of polygraph examinations should not be admitted, we stressed that the polygraph had “not yet attained scientific acceptance as a reliable and accurate means of ascertaining truth or deception.” State v. Foye, 254 N.C. 704, 708 , 120 S.E. 2d 169, 172 (1961). 1984In holding that the results of polygraph examinations should not be admitted, we stressed that the polygraph had “not yet attained scientific acceptance as a reliable and accurate means of ascertaining truth or deception.” State v. Foye, 254 N.C. 704, 708 , 120 S.E. 2d 169, 172 (1961). | 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. Bullard
green
2 sentences1999Id. at 147 , 322 S.E.2d at 380 ; see Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. 1999Id. at 147 , 322 S.E.2d at 380 ; see Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
State v. Peoples
green
2 sentences1984Defendant argues that the Frye test has been chosen by the courts of this State to determine admissibility, 13 citing State v. Temple, 302 N.C. 1 , 273 S.E. 2d 273 (1981) and State v. Peoples, 311 N.C. 515 , 319 S.E. 2d 177 . 1984Defendant argues that the Frye test has been chosen by the courts of this State to determine admissibility, 13 citing State v. Temple, 302 N.C. 1 , 273 S.E. 2d 273 (1981) and State v. Peoples, 311 N.C. 515 , 319 S.E. 2d 177 . | 1 | 1984–1984 |
State v. Temple
green
2 sentences1984Defendant argues that the Frye test has been chosen by the courts of this State to determine admissibility, 13 citing State v. Temple, 302 N.C. 1 , 273 S.E. 2d 273 (1981) and State v. Peoples, 311 N.C. 515 , 319 S.E. 2d 177 . 1984Defendant argues that the Frye test has been chosen by the courts of this State to determine admissibility, 13 citing State v. Temple, 302 N.C. 1 , 273 S.E. 2d 273 (1981) and State v. Peoples, 311 N.C. 515 , 319 S.E. 2d 177 . | 1 | 1984–1984 |
State Ex Rel. Trimble v. Hedman
green
2 sentences1984See State v. Wakefield, 263 N.W. 2d 76 (Minn. 1978) (considering the admissibility of polygraph results); State ex rel Trimble v. Hedman, 291 Minn. 442 , 192 N.W. 2d 432 (1971) (considering the admissibility of voice prints). 1984See State v. Wakefield, 263 N.W. 2d 76 (Minn. 1978) (considering the admissibility of polygraph results); State ex rel Trimble v. Hedman, 291 Minn. 442 , 192 N.W. 2d 432 (1971) (considering the admissibility of voice prints). | 1 | 1984–1984 |
United States v. Joe Corona Valdez
green
2 sentences1984Valdez, 722 F. 2d at 1202 . 1984Valdez, 722 F. 2d at 1202 . | 1 | 1984–1984 |
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.