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 1 courts 1903–2003 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 |
|---|---|---|
Visciotti v. Californiagreen1 sentence2003See State v. Bond, 345 N.C. 1, 36 , 478 S.E.2d 163, 182 (1996), cert. denied, 521 U.S. 1124 , 117 S.Ct. 2521 , 138 L.Ed.2d 1022 (1997). | 1 | 1 |
Washington v. Oakland Unified School Districtgreen2 sentences2003See State v. Bond, 345 N.C. 1, 36 , 478 S.E.2d 163, 182 (1996), cert. denied, 521 U.S. 1124 , 138 L. 2003See State v. Bond, 345 N.C. 1, 36 , 478 S.E.2d 163, 182 (1996), cert. denied, 521 U.S. 1124 , 117 S.Ct. 2521 , 138 L.Ed.2d 1022 (1997). | 1 | 1 |
Marr v. Wrightgreen2 sentences2003See State v. Bond, 345 N.C. 1, 36 , 478 S.E.2d 163, 182 (1996), cert. denied, 521 U.S. 1124 , 138 L. 2003See State v. Bond, 345 N.C. 1, 36 , 478 S.E.2d 163, 182 (1996), cert. denied, 521 U.S. 1124 , 117 S.Ct. 2521 , 138 L.Ed.2d 1022 (1997). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Charles Phillips Bondgreen2 sentences2003See State v. Bond, 345 N.C. 1, 36 , 478 S.E.2d 163, 182 (1996), cert. denied, 521 U.S. 1124 , 117 S.Ct. 2521 , 138 L.Ed.2d 1022 (1997). 2003See State v. Bond, 345 N.C. 1, 36 , 478 S.E.2d 163, 182 (1996), cert. denied, 521 U.S. 1124 , 117 S.Ct. 2521 , 138 L.Ed.2d 1022 (1997). | 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. Miller
green
2 sentences1993This Court recognizes an exception to this rule when the witness’ testimony is “inherently incredible.” State v. Miller, 270 N.C. 726 , 154 S.E.2d 902 (1967) (witness, who had never seen defendant before, identified him at scene of crime, at night, and at a distance of 286 feet). 1993This Court recognizes an exception to this rule when the witness’ testimony is “inherently incredible.” State v. Miller, 270 N.C. 726 , 154 S.E.2d 902 (1967) (witness, who had never seen defendant before, identified him at scene of crime, at night, and at a distance of 286 feet). | 1 | 1993–1993 |
McIntyre v. Clarkson
green
2 sentences1967In the case of McIntyre v. Clarkson, 254 N.C. 510 , 119 S.E.2d 888 , the Court said: "`It is well settled in this state that the courts have the power, and it is their duty, in proper cases to declare an act of the General Assembly unconstitutional; but it must be plainly and clearly the case. 1967In the case of McIntyre v. Clarkson, 254 N.C. 510 , 119 S.E.2d 888 , the Court said: "`It is well settled in this state that the courts have the power, and it is their duty, in proper cases to declare an act of the General Assembly unconstitutional; but it must be plainly and clearly the case. | 1 | 1967–1967 |
Silberman v. Brown
neutral
1 sentence1952It cannot, therefore, be made operative upon his estate after his death.” In Silberman v. Brown, supra, the Court recognizes the principle, epitomized in headnote, that “In absence of any agreement, a father’s liability for support of a minor child ordinarily terminates at father’s death.” *157 And in Robinson v. Robinson, supra, tbe Supreme Court of Vest Virginia considered tbe question as to wbetber tbe force and effect of a decree in a divorce proceeding, for maintenance and support of infant children, operated beyond tbe death of their father against whom tbe decree was entered, and rested | 1 | 1952–1952 |
Blades v. Szatai
green
2 sentences1952It cannot, therefore, be made operative upon his estate after his death.” In Silberman v. Brown, supra, the Court recognizes the principle, epitomized in headnote, that “In absence of any agreement, a father’s liability for support of a minor child ordinarily terminates at father’s death.” *157 And in Robinson v. Robinson, supra, tbe Supreme Court of Vest Virginia considered tbe question as to wbetber tbe force and effect of a decree in a divorce proceeding, for maintenance and support of infant children, operated beyond tbe death of their father against whom tbe decree was entered, and rested 1952It cannot, therefore, be made operative upon his estate after his death.” In Silberman v. Brown, supra, the Court recognizes the principle, epitomized in headnote, that “In absence of any agreement, a father’s liability for support of a minor child ordinarily terminates at father’s death.” *157 And in Robinson v. Robinson, supra, tbe Supreme Court of Vest Virginia considered tbe question as to wbetber tbe force and effect of a decree in a divorce proceeding, for maintenance and support of infant children, operated beyond tbe death of their father against whom tbe decree was entered, and rested | 1 | 1952–1952 |
Robinson v. Robinson
green
1 sentence1952It cannot, therefore, be made operative upon his estate after his death.” In Silberman v. Brown, supra, the Court recognizes the principle, epitomized in headnote, that “In absence of any agreement, a father’s liability for support of a minor child ordinarily terminates at father’s death.” *157 And in Robinson v. Robinson, supra, tbe Supreme Court of Vest Virginia considered tbe question as to wbetber tbe force and effect of a decree in a divorce proceeding, for maintenance and support of infant children, operated beyond tbe death of their father against whom tbe decree was entered, and rested | 1 | 1952–1952 |
Brite v. . Penny
green
2 sentences1931As said by Brown, J., in Brite v. Penny, 157 N. C., 110 , 72 S. E., 964 , this Court recognizes the doctrine held by all courts, that a corporation is not bound by the action or chargeable with the knowledge of its officers, with respect to a transaction, in which such officer is acting *671 in bis own bebalf or in tbe bebalf of another corporation of wbieb be is also an officer. 1931As said by Brown, J., in Brite v. Penny, 157 N. C., 110 , 72 S. E., 964 , this Court recognizes the doctrine held by all courts, that a corporation is not bound by the action or chargeable with the knowledge of its officers, with respect to a transaction, in which such officer is acting *671 in bis own bebalf or in tbe bebalf of another corporation of wbieb be is also an officer. | 1 | 1931–1931 |
Forbes v. . Sheppard
neutral
1 sentence1903In Forbes v. Sheppard, 98 N. C., 111 , the principal debtor paid to the creditor $25 for indulgence. | 1 | 1903–1903 |
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.