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 1991–2023 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Perez v. Abbottgreen1 sentence2023It stated: “The discriminatory taint [from the 2011 plans] was not removed by the Legislature’s enactment of the Court’s interim plans, because the Legislature engaged in no deliberative process to remove any such taint, and in fact intended any such taint to be maintained but be safe from remedy.” Id. at 2325–26 (alteration in original) (quoting Perez v. Abbott, 274 F. Supp. 3d 624, 649 (W.D. | 1 | 1 |
Jarman v. Offuttgreen2 sentences1991In Jarman v. Offutt, 239 N.C. 468, 472 , 80 S.E.2d 248, 251 (1954), the court summarized the privilege attaching to judicial proceedings as follows: The general rule is that a defamatory statement made in due course of a judicial proceeding is absolutely privileged and will not support a civil action for defamation, even though it be made with express malice. 1991In Jarman v. Offutt, 239 N.C. 468, 472 , 80 S.E.2d 248, 251 (1954), the court summarized the privilege attaching to judicial proceedings as follows: The general rule is that a defamatory statement made in due course of a judicial proceeding is absolutely privileged and will not support a civil action for defamation, even though it be made with express malice. | 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. Price
green
2 sentences2010In State v. Price, 280 N.C. 154 , 184 S.E.2d 866 (1971), this Court summarized the requirement of an overt act as follows: In order to constitute an attempt, it is essential that the defendant, with the intent of committing the particular crime, should have done some overt act adapted to, approximating, and which in the ordinary and likely course of things would result in the commission thereof. 2010In State v. Price, 280 N.C. 154 , 184 S.E.2d 866 (1971), this Court summarized the requirement of an overt act as follows: In order to constitute an attempt, it is essential that the defendant, with the intent of committing the particular crime, should have done some overt act adapted to, approximating, and which in the ordinary and likely course of things would result in the commission thereof. | 2 | 1996–2010 |
Abbott v. Perez
green
1 sentence2023It stated: “The discriminatory taint [from the 2011 plans] was not removed by the Legislature’s enactment of the Court’s interim plans, because the Legislature engaged in no deliberative process to remove any such taint, and in fact intended any such taint to be maintained but be safe from remedy.” Id. at 2325–26 (alteration in original) (quoting Perez v. Abbott, 274 F. Supp. 3d 624, 649 (W.D. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
State v. Watterson
green
1 sentence2014Watterson, 198 N.C. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Fedoronko v. American Defender Life Insurance
green
1 sentence1991Id. at 658, 318 S.E.2d at 246 . | 1 | 1991–1991 |
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.