Kennedy factors (North Carolina) · Go Syfert
← North Carolina issues

Kennedy factors in North Carolina

6 North Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1958–2013 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
Hudson v. United Statesgreen
scotus · 1997 · cited in 3 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2001–2013
2 sentences

2002In our determination of this second part of the inquiry we refer to the seven Kennedy factors listed supra. As to the first factor, the statute in question does not impose an “affirmative disability” since that term is normally understood to mean some sanction “approaching the ‘infamous punishment’ of imprisonment.” Hudson, 522 U.S. at 104 , 139 L.

2002In our determination of this second part of the inquiry we refer to the seven Kennedy factors listed supra. As to the first factor, the statute in question does not impose an “affirmative disability” since that term is normally understood to mean some sanction “approaching the ‘infamous punishment’ of imprisonment.” Hudson, 522 U.S. at 104 , 139 L.

23
Schall v. Martingreen
scotus · 1984 · cited in 2 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 1998–1998
2 sentences

1998See Schall v. Martin, 467 U.S. 253 , 81 L.

1998See Schall v. Martin, 467 U.S. 253 , 81 L.

22

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
United States v. Allied Oil Corp. green
scotus · 1951
2 sentences

1998Applying the Kennedy factors in the instant case, we acknowledge that while pretrial detention without bond invokes an affirmative restraint, “the mere fact that a person is detained does not inexorably lead to the conclusion that the government has imposed punishment.” Salerno, 481 U.S. at 746 , 95 L.

1998Applying the Kennedy factors in the instant case, we acknowledge that while pretrial detention without bond invokes an affirmative restraint, “the mere fact that a person is detained does not inexorably lead to the conclusion that the government has imposed punishment.” Salerno, 481 U.S. at 746 , 95 L.

21998–1998
United States v. Salerno green
scotus · 1987
2 sentences

1998Applying the Kennedy factors in the instant case, we acknowledge that while pretrial detention without bond invokes an affirmative restraint, “the mere fact that a person is detained does not inexorably lead to the conclusion that the government has imposed punishment.” Salerno, 481 U.S. at 746 , 95 L.

1998Applying the Kennedy factors in the instant case, we acknowledge that while pretrial detention without bond invokes an affirmative restraint, “the mere fact that a person is detained does not inexorably lead to the conclusion that the government has imposed punishment.” Salerno, 481 U.S. at 746 , 95 L.

21998–1998
Henry v. Edmisten green
nc · 1986
2 sentences

2001However, because N.C.G.S. § 20-16.5, as enacted, reflects an “intent by the legislature for the revocation provision to be a remedial measure,” Henry, 315 N.C. at 495 , 340 S.E.2d at 734 , “ ‘only the clearest proof will suffice to override legislative intent and transform what has been denominated a civil remedy into a criminal penalty.” Hudson, 522 U.S. at 100 , 139 L.

2001However, because N.C.G.S. § 20-16.5, as enacted, reflects an “intent by the legislature for the revocation provision to be a remedial measure,” Henry, 315 N.C. at 495 , 340 S.E.2d at 734 , “ ‘only the clearest proof will suffice to override legislative intent and transform what has been denominated a civil remedy into a criminal penalty.” Hudson, 522 U.S. at 100 , 139 L.

12001–2001
Norris v. Johnson green
nc · 1957
2 sentences

1958On Kennedy’s claim for contribution he was, as to Wilson, a plaintiff, Nor ris v. Johnson, 246 N.C. 179 , 97 S.E. 2d 773 ,. and as such is entitled to have the evidence in support of his claim viewed in the light accorded plaintiffs in passing on motions to nonsuit.

1958On Kennedy’s claim for contribution he was, as to Wilson, a plaintiff, Nor ris v. Johnson, 246 N.C. 179 , 97 S.E. 2d 773 ,. and as such is entitled to have the evidence in support of his claim viewed in the light accorded plaintiffs in passing on motions to nonsuit.

11958–1958

Where else courts name it

TX 68 (1984–2026) WV 22 (2012–2026) PA 19 (1985–2025) IL 16 (1984–2023) CA 11 (2003–2025) DC 9 (1981–2022) TN 8 (1945–2018) OH 7 (1999–2026) NC 6 (1958–2013) IN 6 (2001–2017) AL 6 (1983–2024) FL 6 (2001–2017) MI 6 (1986–2025) KS 5 (1997–2020) NJ 5 (1986–2026) MN 5 (2002–2024) MD 5 (2000–2016) CO 5 (2002–2018) IA 5 (2000–2015) AZ 4 (1993–2022) MS 4 (2006–2019) NE 4 (1988–2018) AR 4 (2009–2017) WA 4 (1984–1998) CT 4 (1994–2025) NV 3 (2017–2017) MA 3 (1995–1998) VA 3 (1996–2015) GA 3 (1998–2008) MT 3 (1992–2012) NY 3 (1997–2017) SD 2 (1998–2015) SC 2 (2009–2009) DE 2 (2016–2016) ME 2 (2012–2016) KY 2 (1999–2016)

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