6 North Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 2004–2023 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Howerton v. Arai Helmet, Ltd.red2 sentences2023In Howerton v. Arai Helmet, Ltd., this Court explained that the rule required a “three-step inquiry for evaluating the admissibility of expert testimony: (1) Is the expert’s proffered method of proof sufficiently reliable as an area for expert testimony? (2) Is the witness testifying at trial qualified as an expert in that area of testimony? (3) Is the expert’s testimony relevant?” 358 N.C. 440, 458 (2004) (citations omitted), superseded on other grounds by statute as stated in SciGrip, Inc. v. Osae, 373 N.C. 409 (2020). 2023In Howerton v. Arai Helmet, Ltd., this Court explained that the rule required a “three-step inquiry for evaluating the admissibility of expert testimony: (1) Is the expert’s proffered method of proof sufficiently reliable as an area for expert testimony? (2) Is the witness testifying at trial qualified as an expert in that area of testimony? (3) Is the expert’s testimony relevant?” 358 N.C. 440, 458 (2004) (citations omitted), superseded on other grounds by statute as stated in SciGrip, Inc. v. Osae, 373 N.C. 409 (2020). | 2 | 3 |
State v. McGradygreen2 sentences2023McGrady, 368 N.C. at 886 (citations omitted). 2023McGrady, 368 N.C. at 886 (citations omitted). | 2 | 2 |
In the Matter of Yocumred1 sentence2014In interpreting Rule 702(a), our Supreme Court has stated that there is a “three-step inquiry for evaluating the admissibility of expert testimony: (1) Is the expert’s proffered method of proof sufficiently reliable as an area for expert testimony? (2) Is the witness testifying at trial qualified as an expert in that area of testimony? (3) Is the expert's testimony relevant?” Howerton, 358 N.C. at 458 , 597 S.E.2d at 686 (internal citations omitted). | 1 | 1 |
State v. McDowellgreen2 sentences2004Because the trial judge “did not have the legal standard which we articulate today to guide him in his consideration of the case,... it is not reasonable to expect him to have applied it without the benefit of this opinion.” State v. McDowell, 310 N.C. 61, 74 , 310 S.E.2d 301, 310 (1984), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1165 , 90 L. 2004Because the trial judge “did not have the legal standard which we articulate today to guide him in his consideration of the case,... it is not reasonable to expect him to have applied it without the benefit of this opinion.” State v. McDowell, 310 N.C. 61, 74 , 310 S.E.2d 301, 310 (1984), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1165 , 90 L. | 1 | 1 |
Powell v. Parkergreen1 sentence2004See Powell v. Parker, 62 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 |
|---|---|---|
New Hampshire v. Maine
green
2 sentences2009In Whitacre P'ship v. Biosignia, Inc., 358 N.C. 1 , 591 S.E.2d 870 (2004), our Supreme Court set forth this State's version of the doctrine, taken from the United States Supreme Court case of New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. 742 , 121 S.Ct. 1808 , 149 L.Ed.2d 968 (2001). 2009In Whitacre P'ship v. Biosignia, Inc., 358 N.C. 1 , 591 S.E.2d 870 (2004), our Supreme Court set forth this State's version of the doctrine, taken from the United States Supreme Court case of New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. 742 , 121 S.Ct. 1808 , 149 L.Ed.2d 968 (2001). | 2 | 2004–2009 |
Whitacre Partnership v. Biosignia, Inc.
green
2 sentences2009In Whitacre P'ship v. Biosignia, Inc., 358 N.C. 1 , 591 S.E.2d 870 (2004), our Supreme Court set forth this State's version of the doctrine, taken from the United States Supreme Court case of New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. 742 , 121 S.Ct. 1808 , 149 L.Ed.2d 968 (2001). 2009In Whitacre P'ship v. Biosignia, Inc., 358 N.C. 1 , 591 S.E.2d 870 (2004), our Supreme Court set forth this State's version of the doctrine, taken from the United States Supreme Court case of New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. 742 , 121 S.Ct. 1808 , 149 L.Ed.2d 968 (2001). | 1 | 2009–2009 |
State v. Taylor
green
1 sentence2004App. at 400 , 496 S.E.2d at 815 , the court necessarily applied a version of the doctrine substantially different from the one we delineate today. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Augustyniak v. City of New York
green
1 sentence2004Because the trial judge “did not have the legal standard which we articulate today to guide him in his consideration of the case,... it is not reasonable to expect him to have applied it without the benefit of this opinion.” State v. McDowell, 310 N.C. 61, 74 , 310 S.E.2d 301, 310 (1984), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1165 , 90 L. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
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.
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.