(a) A printed copy of a statute, or other written law, of another state, or of a territory, or of a foreign country, or a printed copy of a proclamation, edict, decree or ordinance, by the executive thereof, contained in a book or publication purporting or proved to have been published by the authority thereof, or proved to be commonly admitted as evidence of the existing law, in the judicial tribunals thereof, shall be evidence of the statute law, proclamation, edict, decree, or ordinance. The unwritten or common law of another state, or of a territory, or of a foreign country, may be proved as a fact by oral evidence. The books of the reports of cases, adjudged in the courts thereof, shall also be admitted as evidence of the unwritten or common law thereof.
(b) Any party may exhibit a copy of the law of another state, territory, or foreign country copied from a printed volume of the laws of such state, territory, or country on file in
(1) The offices of the Governor or the Secretary of State, and duly certified by the Secretary of State, or
(2) The State Library and certified as provided in G.S. 125-6, or
(3) The Supreme Court Library and certified as provided in G.S. 7A-13 (f). (1823, c. 1193, ss. 1, 3, P.R.; R.C., c. 44, s. 3; C.C.P., s. 360; Code, s. 1338; Rev., s. 1594; C.S., s. 1749; 1967, c. 565.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
15
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 1968–2021 · leading case:
State v. Morgan, 595 S.E.2d 804 (N.C. Ct. App. 2004).
State v. Morgan, 595 S.E.2d 804 (N.C. Ct. App. 2004).
· cites it 4× “In support of its assertion that the felony homicide conviction was substantially similar to the offense of voluntary manslaughter in North Carolina, the State presented a copy of the 2002 New Jersey homicide statute. Section 8-3 of the North Carolina General Statutes provides…”
State v. Sanders, 766 S.E.2d 331 (N.C. 2014).
· cites it 3× “2d 49, 52 (citing N.C.G.S. § 8-3), disc. rev. denied, 349 N.”
State v. Riley, 802 S.E.2d 494 (N.C. Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 2× “2d 49 , 52 (1998) (citing N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8-3 ). In Burgess , we held that the State failed to establish sufficient evidence of the out-of-state offenses because it was unclear whether the printed copies of the statutes offered by the State reflected the basis for the…”
State v. Rich, 502 S.E.2d 49 (N.C. Ct. App. 1998).
· cites it 2× “G.S. § 8-3 provides that a printed copy of a statute of another state is admissible as evidence of the statute law of such state.”
Holloway v. Wachovia Bank & Trust Co., NA, 452 S.E.2d 233 (N.C. 1994).
“Brian Howell, Howell’s Shuford North Carolina Civil Practice and Procedure § 8-3 (4th ed. 1992) (“So long as some demand for relief is made, it apparently is not crucial that the wrong relief has been demanded.”
Blades v. City of Raleigh, 187 S.E.2d 35 (N.C. 1972).
“The contention that the Williams property is an island, since it is bounded by Lassiter Mill Road, the Old Lassiter Mill Road, the Lassiter properties to the south and the proposed extension of Marlowe Road to the north, is untenable.”
Patterson v. Sweatt, 553 S.E.2d 404 (N.C. Ct. App. 2001).
“” However, we reason that the trial court has the same authority to punish such a violation as it would if a complaint demanding a specific sum above ten thousand dollars were filed in violation of Rule 8(a)(2).”
Foy v. Hunter, 418 S.E.2d 299 (N.C. Ct. App. 1992).
“Brian Howell, Shuford North Carolina Civil Practice and Procedure § 8-3 (4th ed. 1992) (dismissal not the only sanction available to “adequately *620 enforce the purpose” of Rule 8(a)(2)).”
Zopfi v. City of Wilmington, 160 S.E.2d 325 (N.C. 1968).
“If the amending ordinance is beyond the legislative power of the city, whether for the reason that it constitutes spot zoning or on some other ground, its adoption does not remove the designated area from the effect of the comprehensive zoning ordinance previously enacted.”
Hill v. Shanks, 170 S.E.2d 116 (N.C. Ct. App. 1969).
· cites it 2× “*259 Section 8-3 which relates as follows: ‘8-3.”
State v. Claxton, 736 S.E.2d 603 (N.C. Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 2× “2d at 52 ; see also N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8-3 (2011) (“A printed copy of a statute, .”
Allred v. City of Raleigh, 173 S.E.2d 533 (N.C. Ct. App. 1970).
“, Zoning § 91; Yokley, Zoning Law and Practice, § 8-3, 3rd ed.” The ordinance here challenged does not change the type of use permitted in the designated area but it does permit a more dense concentration of residents.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.