timing requirement (North Carolina) · Go Syfert
← North Carolina issues

timing requirement in North Carolina

6 North Carolina opinions name it 1 courts 1998–2020 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.

Followed or applied (4)

CaseFollowedCited
State v. Wilsongreen
ncctapp · 1998 · cited in 3 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2020–2020
2 sentences

2020See, e.g., State v. Wilson, 128 N.C.

2020See, e.g., State v. Wilson, 128 N.C.

33
State v. Wallgreen
ncctapp · 2014 · cited in 3 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2020–2020
2 sentences

2020App. 196, 200 , 760 S.E.2d 386, 388 (2014) (holding the State’s failure to file its statement of charges consistent with the timing requirement in N.C.

2020App. 196, 200 , 760 S.E.2d 386, 388 (2014) (holding the State’s failure to file its statement of charges consistent with the timing requirement in N.C.

33
Dixon v. Lovegreen
scotus · 1977 · cited in 1 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2015–2015
2 sentences

2015See, e.g., Dixon v. Love, 431 U.S. 105 , 113-15, 97 S.Ct. 1723 , 1727-29, 52 L.Ed.2d 172 (1977) (truck drivers' license).

2015See, e.g., Dixon v. Love, 431 U.S. 105 , 113-15, 97 S.Ct. 1723 , 1727-29, 52 L.Ed.2d 172 (1977) (truck drivers' license).

11
Roush v. Kennongreen
ncctapp · 2008 · cited in 1 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2008–2008
1 sentence

2008Cf. Roush v. Kennon, ___ N.C.App. ___, ___, 656 S.E.2d 603, 607-08 (2008) (holding that an expert can comply with the timing requirement if an expert's research, even after his or her deposition, revealed that the standard of care in his or her community was the same or similar to the standard of care in the community in which he or she is testifying when the injury occurred).

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in North Carolina. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (1)

CaseCitedYears
State v. Wilson green
ncctapp · 1982
2 sentences

1998Furthermore, assuming arguendo that the timing requirement of N.C.G.S. § 15A-952(b) applies to motions for joinder made by the State, “it is within the discretion of a trial judge to permit pre-trial motions to be filed at a later time than set out in the statute.” Wilson, 57 N.C.

1998App. at 447 , 291 S.E.2d at 832 .

11998–1998

Statutes the citing opinions construe

NC § N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-642 (3) NC § N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-922 (3)

Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.

Where else courts name it

IL 78 (1979–2026) PA 43 (1979–2026) CA 37 (1979–2026) MI 20 (1999–2025) NY 20 (1992–2026) OH 19 (2007–2024) TX 18 (2001–2016) WA 16 (1999–2025) GA 15 (1983–2025) MO 15 (1989–2024) UT 14 (2000–2026) OR 12 (1979–2025) DC 11 (1980–2023) NE 10 (2006–2022) MN 10 (1994–2025) FL 9 (1988–2024) MD 8 (1998–2025) AZ 8 (2000–2025) CT 8 (1994–2021) DE 8 (1994–2024) IA 7 (2016–2021) MA 7 (1994–2025) LA 6 (1998–2012) NC 6 (1998–2020) MT 6 (1985–2011) VA 6 (2010–2019) TN 6 (2016–2024) CO 5 (2011–2026) ID 5 (1986–2023) RI 5 (1980–2015) KS 5 (1982–2024) WI 4 (1981–2014) HI 4 (1994–2016) IN 4 (2011–2026) NJ 4 (2000–2026) AK 3 (1984–2022) NM 3 (2006–2025) SC 3 (2001–2022) AL 3 (2001–2006) WY 3 (2010–2018) KY 3 (2020–2025) NV 2 (2022–2024) SD 2 (2008–2021) MS 2 (1991–1992) NH 2 (1992–2023)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check