42 North Carolina opinions name it 3 courts 1924–2026 13 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. Arringtongreen2 sentences2017We use a "totality of the circumstances test to determine whether probable cause exist[ed]." Allman , 369 N.C. at 293 , 794 S.E.2d at 303 (citing Arrington , 311 N.C. at 643 , 319 S.E.2d at 260-61 ). *577 B. 2017We use a "totality of the circumstances test to determine whether probable cause exist[ed]." Allman , 369 N.C. at 293 , 794 S.E.2d at 303 (citing Arrington , 311 N.C. at 643 , 319 S.E.2d at 260-61 ). *577 B. | 3 | 5 |
Illinois v. Gatesgreen2 sentences2010Id. at 314-15 , 585 S.E.2d at 485 (establishing totality of the circumstances as the test under North Carolina Constitution); see also Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 233 , 76 L. 2010Id. at 314-15 , 585 S.E.2d at 485 (establishing totality of the circumstances as the test under North Carolina Constitution); see also Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 233 , 76 L. | 3 | 5 |
Rowe v. Rowegreen2 sentences2002“To determine whether a change in circumstances under G.S. 50-16.9 has occurred, it is necessary to refer to the circumstances or factors used in the original determination of the amount of alimony awarded under G.S. 50-16.5.” Rowe v. Rowe, 305 N.C. 177, 187 , 287 S.E.2d 840, 846 (1982), disc. rev. denied, 314 N.C. 331 , 333 S.E.2d 489 (1985). 2002“To determine whether a change in circumstances under G.S. 50-16.9 has occurred, it is necessary to refer to the circumstances or factors used in the original determination of the amount of alimony awarded under G.S. 50-16.5.” Rowe v. Rowe, 305 N.C. 177, 187 , 287 S.E.2d 840, 846 (1982), disc. rev. denied, 314 N.C. 331 , 333 S.E.2d 489 (1985). | 2 | 3 |
State v. Downinggreen2 sentences2022This Court engaged in the traditional totality of the circumstances test to determine whether the police had probable cause to conduct a warrantless search and seizure of the marijuana: The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 20 of the North Carolina Constitution prohibit unreasonable searches and seizures and apply to “brief investigatory detentions such as those involved in the stopping of a vehicle.” State v. Downing, 169 N.C. 2022This Court engaged in the traditional totality of the circumstances test to determine whether the police had probable cause to conduct a warrantless search and seizure of the marijuana: The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 20 of the North Carolina Constitution prohibit unreasonable searches and seizures and apply to “brief investigatory detentions such as those involved in the stopping of a vehicle.” State v. Downing, 169 N.C. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Harrisongreen2 sentences2021App. at 552 , 721 S.E.2d at 376 (finding no error in part because witness recalled events outside the refreshing aid). ¶ 26 Fifth, Defendant argues the Court “should also factor in the circumstances surrounding the witness in determining if the letter was used as a testimonial crutch” before pointing out “Mr. Cameron’s credibility was very questionable.” We first note Defendant cites no support for the proposition that we should consider the witness’s circumstances in this analysis. 2021App. at 552 , 721 S.E.2d at 376 (finding no error in part because witness recalled events outside the refreshing aid). ¶ 26 Fifth, Defendant argues the Court “should also factor in the circumstances surrounding the witness in determining if the letter was used as a testimonial crutch” before pointing out “Mr. Cameron’s credibility was very questionable.” We first note Defendant cites no support for the proposition that we should consider the witness’s circumstances in this analysis. | 2 | 2 |
Stansbury v. Californiagreen2 sentences2010See Stansbury v. California, 511 U.S. 318, 322-23 , 128 L. 2010See Stansbury v. California, 511 U.S. 318, 322-23 , 128 L. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Fowlergreen2 sentences2009State v. Fowler, 312 N.C. 304, 308-09 , 322 S.E.2d 389, 392 (1984) (rejecting an argument that a judge's question to a jury constituted a per se violation of Article I, Section 24 of the North Carolina Constitution and stating that "[t]he appropriate standard is whether in the totality of the circumstances the inquiry is coercive.") (citations omitted). 2009State v. Fowler, 312 N.C. 304, 308-09 , 322 S.E.2d 389, 392 (1984) (rejecting an argument that a judge's question to a jury constituted a per se violation of Article I, Section 24 of the North Carolina Constitution and stating that "[t]he appropriate standard is whether in the totality of the circumstances the inquiry is coercive.") (citations omitted). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Collinsgreen2 sentences2010Id. at 314-15 , 585 S.E.2d at 485 (establishing totality of the circumstances as the test under North Carolina Constitution); see also Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 233 , 76 L. 2010Id. at 314-15 , 585 S.E.2d at 485 (establishing totality of the circumstances as the test under North Carolina Constitution); see also Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 233 , 76 L. | 1 | 1 |
Cunningham v. Cunninghamgreen2 sentences2008Additionally, where the alimony order originates from a private agreement between the parties, as it does here, “determining whether there has been a material change in the parties’ circumstances sufficient to justify a modification . . . may require the trial court to make findings of fact as to what the original circumstances or factors were in addition to what the current circumstances or factors are.” Cunningham, 345 N.C. at 436 , 480 S.E.2d at 406 (emphasis added). 2008Additionally, where the alimony order originates from a private agreement between the parties, as it does here, “determining whether there has been a material change in the parties’ circumstances sufficient to justify a modification . . . may require the trial court to make findings of fact as to what the original circumstances or factors were in addition to what the current circumstances or factors are.” Cunningham, 345 N.C. at 436 , 480 S.E.2d at 406 (emphasis added). | 1 | 1 |
Bruce E. Ellis v. Amos E. Reed, Secretary of Corrections, and the Attorney General of the State of North Carolinagreen2 sentences1984Ellis, 596 F. 2d at 1200 ; Yarborough, 64 N.C. 1984Id. at 1200. | 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. Allman
green
2 sentences2017We use a "totality of the circumstances test to determine whether probable cause exist[ed]." Allman , 369 N.C. at 293 , 794 S.E.2d at 303 (citing Arrington , 311 N.C. at 643 , 319 S.E.2d at 260-61 ). *577 B. 2017We use a "totality of the circumstances test to determine whether probable cause exist[ed]." Allman , 369 N.C. at 293 , 794 S.E.2d at 303 (citing Arrington , 311 N.C. at 643 , 319 S.E.2d at 260-61 ). *577 B. | 3 | 2017–2022 |
State v. Larrimore
green
2 sentences2022Id., 271 N.C. 2022Id., 271 N.C. | 2 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Grady
green
2 sentences2022GRIFFIN 2022-NCCOA-681 Opinion of the Court that lifetime SBM under the statutes then in effect was unconstitutional as to all offenders who were not subject to probation and were enrolled in SBM solely on the basis of recidivism. 372 N.C. at 511 , 831 S.E.2d at 546-47 . 2022GRIFFIN 2022-NCCOA-681 Opinion of the Court that lifetime SBM under the statutes then in effect was unconstitutional as to all offenders who were not subject to probation and were enrolled in SBM solely on the basis of recidivism. 372 N.C. at 511 , 831 S.E.2d at 546-47 . | 2 | 2022–2022 |
State v. McCoy
green
2 sentences2021Ct. App. April 20, 2021) (unpublished) (citing McCoy, 100 N.C. 2021Ct. App. April 20, 2021) (unpublished) (citing McCoy, 100 N.C. | 2 | 2021–2021 |
Johnson v. De Grandy
green
2 sentences2015De Grandy, 512 U.S. at 1018-20 , 114 S. Ct. at 2660-61 , 129 L. 2015De Grandy, 512 U.S. at 1018-20 , 114 S. Ct. at 2660-61 , 129 L. | 2 | 2014–2015 |
State v. Yarborough
green
2 sentences1987Ellis, 596 F. 2d at 1200; Yarborough, 64 N.C. 1984Ellis, 596 F. 2d at 1200 ; Yarborough, 64 N.C. | 2 | 1984–1987 |
Odd Fellows' Cemetery Ass'n v. City & County of San Francisco
green
2 sentences1924To this effect are the following cases (which cite, among others, the cases supra of Hadacheck, Kittenbrink, Montgomery, Quong Wo): Cemetery Asso. v. San Francisco , 140 Cal. 226 ; R. 1924To this effect are the following cases (which cite, among others, the cases supra of Hadacheck, Kittenbrink, Montgomery, Quong Wo): Cemetery Asso. v. San Francisco, 140 Cal., 226 ; R. | 2 | 1924–1924 |
Kansas v. Glover
green
1 sentence2026Under Glover, where information known to officers at the time of the stop affirmatively negates an inference of reasonable suspicion, that inference is dispelled and may not be counted in favor of probable cause. 589 U.S. at 386 n.2. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
State v. Bright
green
2 sentences2017Discussion Defendant contends the warrants to search his rental cabin lacked probable cause because the supporting affidavit was "based on the suspicions of [Mr.] and [Mrs.] McCall but not on a nexus between the breaking and entering of the horse trailer at 441 Sugar Loaf Road and [defendant's] cabin." We disagree. *417 We review the sufficiency of a search warrant affidavit to ensure the facts and circumstances described and all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom supplied a magistrate " 'reasonable cause to believe that the search will reveal the presence of the [items] sought on the premi 2017Discussion Defendant contends the warrants to search his rental cabin lacked probable cause because the supporting affidavit was "based on the suspicions of [Mr.] and [Mrs.] McCall but not on a nexus between the breaking and entering of the horse trailer at 441 Sugar Loaf Road and [defendant's] cabin." We disagree. *417 We review the sufficiency of a search warrant affidavit to ensure the facts and circumstances described and all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom supplied a magistrate " 'reasonable cause to believe that the search will reveal the presence of the [items] sought on the premi | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Smallwood v. Smallwood
green
1 sentence2015"Under the 'totality of the circumstances test,' a court must evaluate all the circumstances of the particular case, with no single factor controlling." Id. (citing Fletcher v. Fletcher, 123 N.C.App. 744 , 750, 474 S.E.2d 802 , 806 (1996) ). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Fletcher v. Fletcher
green
2 sentences2015"Under the 'totality of the circumstances test,' a court must evaluate all the circumstances of the particular case, with no single factor controlling." Id. (citing Fletcher v. Fletcher, 123 N.C.App. 744 , 750, 474 S.E.2d 802 , 806 (1996) ). 2015"Under the 'totality of the circumstances test,' a court must evaluate all the circumstances of the particular case, with no single factor controlling." Id. (citing Fletcher v. Fletcher, 123 N.C.App. 744 , 750, 474 S.E.2d 802 , 806 (1996) ). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
State v. Hart
green
2 sentences2007The majority’s opinion mischaracterizes this Court’s duty when confronted with violations of the appellate rules in light of Hart. 361 N.C. at 316 ,-S.E.2d at —. 2007The majority's opinion mischaracterizes this Court's duty when confronted with violations of the appellate rules in light of Hart, 361 N.C. at ___ , 644 S.E.2d at 203 . | 1 | 2007–2007 |
cluster 676508
green
1 sentence2006This certainty and predictability as to the circumstances of a waiver encourage clients to consult with counsel free from the apprehension that the communications will be disclosed without their consent. 32 F.3d at 863-64 . {38} Evergreen has not put its attorney’s advice directly in issue in this litigation. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
State v. Hughes
green
2 sentences2003Applying the Gates totality of the circumstances test in State v. Hughes, 353 N.C. 200 , 539 S.E.2d 625 (2000), our Supreme Court further explained the effect of Gates by discussing the case of Alabama v. White, 496 U.S. 325 , 110 L. 2003Applying the Gates totality of the circumstances test in State v. Hughes, 353 N.C. 200 , 539 S.E.2d 625 (2000), our Supreme Court further explained the effect of Gates by discussing the case of Alabama v. White, 496 U.S. 325 , 110 L. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Alabama v. White
green
2 sentences2003Applying the Gates totality of the circumstances test in State v. Hughes, 353 N.C. 200 , 539 S.E.2d 625 (2000), our Supreme Court further explained the effect of Gates by discussing the case of Alabama v. White, 496 U.S. 325 , 110 L. 2003Applying the Gates totality of the circumstances test in State v. Hughes, 353 N.C. 200 , 539 S.E.2d 625 (2000), our Supreme Court further explained the effect of Gates by discussing the case of Alabama v. White, 496 U.S. 325 , 110 L. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Aguilar v. Texas
red
2 sentences2003The standard for finding probable cause based on information supplied by a reliable informant before Gates was established in Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108 , 12 L. 2003The standard for finding probable cause based on information supplied by a reliable informant before Gates was established in Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108 , 12 L. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
State v. Davis
neutral
2 sentences2003Ed. 2d 527 (1983) (establishing the standard in a case involving a tip sent to the police in an anonymous letter), and State v. Davis, 66 N.C. 2003App. 98 , 311 S.E.2d 19 (1984) (applying the Gates totality of the circumstances test to a tip sent to the police in an anonymous letter). | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Sides v. Duke University
green
1 sentence2002“To determine whether a change in circumstances under G.S. 50-16.9 has occurred, it is necessary to refer to the circumstances or factors used in the original determination of the amount of alimony awarded under G.S. 50-16.5.” Rowe v. Rowe, 305 N.C. 177, 187 , 287 S.E.2d 840, 846 (1982), disc. rev. denied, 314 N.C. 331 , 333 S.E.2d 489 (1985). | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Fox v. Wilson
green
1 sentence1988Fox v. Wilson, 85 N.C. | 1 | 1988–1988 |
State v. Irick
green
2 sentences1985State v. Irick, 291 N.C. 480 , 231 S.E. 2d 833 (1977). 1985State v. Irick, 291 N.C. 480 , 231 S.E. 2d 833 (1977). | 1 | 1985–1985 |
| Seath v. Regulations & Permits Administration green | 1 | 1984–1984 |
| Harris v. Harris green | 1 | 1984–1984 |
| Gore v. George J. Ball, Incorporated green | 1 | 1981–1981 |
| State v. . Carroll green | 1 | 1962–1962 |
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.