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 1905–2000 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. Caseygreen2 sentences2000The juveniles’ last assignment of error is that the juvenile court erred in finding them delinquent for committing injury to property since there was insufficient evidence to show they acted “wantonly and willfully.” “Ordinarily, wilful as used in criminal statutes means the wrongful doing of an act without justification or excuse, or the commission of an act purposely and deliberately in violation of the law.” State v. Casey, 60 N.C. 2000App. at 414, 416-417, 299 S.E.2d 235, 237 , disc. review denied, 308 N.C. 192 , 302 S.E.2d 245 (1983). | 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. Courtright
green
2 sentences2000App. at 414, 416-417, 299 S.E.2d 235, 237 , disc. review denied, 308 N.C. 192 , 302 S.E.2d 245 (1983). 2000App. at 414, 416-417, 299 S.E.2d 235, 237 , disc. review denied, 308 N.C. 192 , 302 S.E.2d 245 (1983). | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Cutts v. Casey
green
2 sentences1977They argue that by denying material allegations in the plaintiffs’ complaint, by raising affirmative defenses, and by presenting evidence thereon, they are entitled to go to the jury based on the reasoning in Cutts v. Casey, 278 N.C. 390 , 180 S.E. 2d 297 (1971). 1977They argue that by denying material allegations in the plaintiffs’ complaint, by raising affirmative defenses, and by presenting evidence thereon, they are entitled to go to the jury based on the reasoning in Cutts v. Casey, 278 N.C. 390 , 180 S.E. 2d 297 (1971). | 1 | 1977–1977 |
State v. Cameron
green
2 sentences1975For a complete discussion of this proposition, see State v. Cameron, 283 N.C. 191 , 195 S.E. 2d 481 (1973). *737 The defendant’s last assignment of error is that the trial court erred in refusing to grant defendant’s motions for judgment as of nonsuit. 1975For a complete discussion of this proposition, see State v. Cameron, 283 N.C. 191 , 195 S.E. 2d 481 (1973). *737 The defendant’s last assignment of error is that the trial court erred in refusing to grant defendant’s motions for judgment as of nonsuit. | 1 | 1975–1975 |
State v. . Miller
neutral
1 sentence1923S. v. Farrington, 141 N. C., 845 , citing S. v. Hicks, 101 N. C., 747 ; S. v. Miller, 94 N. C., 904 . | 1 | 1923–1923 |
State v. . Hicks
neutral
1 sentence1923S. v. Farrington, 141 N. C., 845 , citing S. v. Hicks, 101 N. C., 747 ; S. v. Miller, 94 N. C., 904 . | 1 | 1923–1923 |
Davis v. Keen.
neutral
2 sentences1912Da vis v. Keen, 142 N. C., 496 . 1912Davis v. Keen , 142 N.C. 496 . | 1 | 1912–1912 |
Lehew v. Hewett.
green
1 sentence1905By it, the defendant challenges the correctness of the ruling made in this case when before ns at a former term ( 130 N. C., 22 ) and in several other cases to the effect that the judge cannot pass upon the weight of evidence and withdraw a Case from the jury, when it appears to him that the evidence is not clear, strong and convincing. | 1 | 1905–1905 |
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.