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 1988–2012 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. Fraziergreen2 sentences2012State v. Frazier, 319 N.C. 388, 390 , 354 S.E.2d 475, 477 (1987); see also N.C. 2012State v. Frazier, 319 N.C. 388, 390 , 354 S.E.2d 475, 477 (1987); see also N.C. | 1 | 1 |
Sheldon P. KOTTLE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NORTHWEST KIDNEY CENTERS, Defendant-Appelleegreen2 sentences2005In order for plaintiffs to prevail under the third prong of the test, they must allege facts indicating that defendant Betsy Johnson made misrepresentations before Department that deprived the entire CON proceeding of its legitimacy. “[W]hen ‘a plaintiff seeks damages... for conduct which is prima facie protected by the First Amendment, the danger that the mere pendency of the action will chill the exercise of First Amendment rights requires more specific allegations than would otherwise be required.’ ” Kottle v. Northwest Kidney Ctrs., 146 F.3d 1056, 1063 (9th Cir., 1998) (citation omitted). 2005“In such cases, we employ a heightened pleading standard, and that standard ‘would have no force if in order to satisfy it, a party could simply recast disputed issues from the underlying litigation as “misrepresentations” by the other party.’ ” Id. (citations omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Roberts v. Swaingreen1 sentence2003See Roberts v. Swain, 126 N.C. | 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. Graves
green
2 sentences2009In so holding, we found that the State had successfully established the first two prongs of the plain view doctrine but had failed to satisfy the third prong of the test because “[t]he State . . . failed to establish that it was imme *55 diately apparent to the police officer that the items observed were evidence of a crime or contraband.” Id. at 219 , 519 S.E.2d at 772 . 2009In so holding, we found that the State had successfully established the first two prongs of the plain view doctrine but had failed to satisfy the third prong of the test because “[t]he State . . . failed to establish that it was imme *55 diately apparent to the police officer that the items observed were evidence of a crime or contraband.” Id. at 219 , 519 S.E.2d at 772 . | 1 | 2009–2009 |
United States v. Biswell
green
2 sentences1992Biswell, 406 U.S. at 315 , 92 S.Ct. at 1596 , 32 L.Ed.2d at 92 . 1992Biswell, 406 U.S. at 315 , 92 S.Ct. at 1596 , 32 L.Ed.2d at 92 . | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Donovan v. Dewey
green
2 sentences1992To meet the third prong of the test, the statutory provision must (1) notify property owners that they "`will be subject to periodic inspections undertaken for specific purposes,'" id., and (2) carefully limit official discretion as to the time, place, and scope of the inspections. 1992To meet the third prong of the test, the statutory provision must (1) notify property owners that they “ ‘will be subject to periodic inspections undertaken for specific purposes,’ ” id., and (2) carefully limit official discretion as to the time, place, and scope of the inspections. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Pope v. Illinois
green
1 sentence1988However, we agree with defendant that, under Pope , such an instruction is required, and we therefore direct the trial court, if there is a retrial, to instruct the jury that the third prong of the test requires them to decide “whether a reasonable person would find [serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific] value in the material, taken as a whole.” Pope at —, 95 L.Ed. 2d at 445 . | 1 | 1988–1988 |
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.