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 1978–2017 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. Wilsongreen2 sentences2011This Court noted the general rule that “when a defendant is indicted for a criminal offense, he may be convicted of the charged offense or a lesser included offense [only] when the greater offense which is charged in the bill of indictment contains all of the essential elements of the lesser.” Id. at 692 , 497 S.E.2d at 419-20 (quotation marks omitted). 2011This Court noted the general rule that “when a defendant is indicted for a criminal offense, he may be convicted of the charged offense or a lesser included offense [only] when the greater offense which is charged in the bill of indictment contains all of the essential elements of the lesser.” Id. at 692 , 497 S.E.2d at 419-20 (quotation marks omitted). | 1 | 1 |
McCorkle v. North Point Chrysler Jeep, Inc.green2 sentences2011The Court went on to note the following exception: *301 “an owner or occupier of land who hires an independent contractor is not required to take reasonable precautions against dangers which may be incident to the work undertaken by the independent contractor.” Id. at_, 703 S.E.2d at 753 (citations and quotation marks omitted). 2011The Court noted the general rule that “an independent contractor and his employees who go upon the premises of an owner, at the owner’s request, are lawful visitors and are owed a duty of due care[,]” and that “[t]his duty also requires a landowner, as well as a general contractor, to make a reasonable inspection to ascertain the existence of hidden dangers.” Id. (citations omitted). | 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. Froneberger
green
2 sentences2017The Court noted the general rule, "A single larceny offense is committed when, as part of one continuous act or transaction, a perpetrator steals several items at the same time and place." Id. at 401 , 344 S.E.2d at 347 . 2017The Court noted the general rule, "A single larceny offense is committed when, as part of one continuous act or transaction, a perpetrator steals several items at the same time and place." Id. at 401 , 344 S.E.2d at 347 . | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Devereux Properties, Inc. v. BBM & W, INC.
green
2 sentences2001However, this Court also held that “[a]n exception to these rules holds the guarantor responsible for any changes to which he has either expressly or impliedly consented.” Devereaux at 624, 442 S.E.2d at 556 . 2001This Court noted the general rule that “a material alteration of a contract between a principal debtor and creditor without the consent of the guarantor discharges the guarantor of his obligation.” Devereux at 623, 442 S.E.2d at 556 . | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Charles T. Henderson, Jr., George Truitt Robbins and John B. Dees v. United States
green
1 sentence1981The court allowed him to assert his defense of entrapment, even in view of his denial of the offense charged, stating that the two defenses were not so repugnant that “the proof of the one necessarily disproves the other.” The court noted the general rule and its rationale but held that under the circumstances of that particular case the defendant should be permitted to say, “I did not go so far as to become a party to the conspiracy, but to the extent that I did travel down the road to crime, I was entrapped.’” 237 F. 2d at 173 . | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Stanley v. Department of Conservation & Development
green
2 sentences1978Thus, he may attack a statute which . . . exempts persons or property from taxation, or imposes on him in its enforcement an additional financial burden, however slight.’ ” 284 N.C. at 29 , 199 S.E. 2d at 651 , quoting 16 C.J.S. 1978Thus, he may attack a statute which . . . exempts persons or property from taxation, or imposes on him in its enforcement an additional financial burden, however slight.’ ” 284 N.C. at 29 , 199 S.E. 2d at 651 , quoting 16 C.J.S. | 1 | 1978–1978 |
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.