Case law

Opinions from 1658 to today.

Filtersnc

1,845 results

1.42s

  • State v. Porter

    303 N.C. 680 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Aug 31, 1981

    Porter contends that since the dog handler who testifed at trial could not establish the pedigree of the dog that tracked him, the *690 first element specified in McLeod was not established. … Porter’s initial statement that “the bank bag is in the car” was clearly the type of volunteered statement expressly excluded from the Miranda holding.

    Cited 96 timesPublished
  • State v. Perkins

    345 N.C. 254 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Feb 10, 1997

    Hall also expressed uncertainty about whether he could be qualified under the law. … The evidence at trial established that defendant raped the seven-year-old victim while he smothered her with a pillow.

    Cited 19 timesPublished
  • Dickson v. Rucho

    367 N.C. 542 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 19, 2014

    This language from Shaw II clearly places the burden of proof on the State once strict scrutiny is triggered. … While the Supreme Court held that such redistricting did not violate VRA section 2, the Court explicitly rejected the state’s proposed rule that “rough proportionality” would always immunize the state from VRA section 2 liability

    Cited 11 timesPublished
  • State v. James

    371 N.C. 77 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · May 11, 2018

    In this state, however, the General Assembly "acted quickly in response to Miller and passed the Act, establishing new sentencing guidelines in N.C. … requires a sentencing judge to "consider" mitigating factors and make findings based on the "absence or presence" of such factors "hinders the trial court's ability to winnow the class of juvenile defendants to those who might qualify

    Cited 33 timesPublished
  • State v. Lemons

    348 N.C. 335 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jul 9, 1998

    This Court went on to state that [defendant] had no right to be present when prospective jurors were preliminarily sworn, oriented and qualified for jury service in general, without regard to any particular case or trial. … First, defendant must establish aprima *361 facie case that the peremptory challenge was exercised on the basis of race. Id.

    Vacated on other grounds by Reogas v. Gray, 119 S. Ct. 2363 (1999)Cited 29 timesPublished
  • State v. Diaz-Tomas

    Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 4, 2022

    Because the presence of the word “may” in N.C.G.S. § 15A-932(d) “clearly indicates . . . that discretion to reinstate charges previously dismissed with leave lies solely with the prosecutor,” the District Court … In Camacho, this Court observed that [t]he several District Attorneys of the State are independent constitutional officers, elected in their districts by the qualified

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • State v. Hilton

    Supreme Court of North Carolina · Sep 24, 2021

    Therefore, SBM is clearly constitutionally reasonable during a defendant’s post-release supervision period. … Under the SBM program, a defendant is entitled to a hearing where the State must present evidence establishing how the defendant qualifies for SBM enrollment. N.C.G.S.

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • Town of Emerald Isle Ex Rel. Smith v. State

    320 N.C. 640 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Oct 7, 1987

    , 187 S.E. 781, 784 (1936): It is well settled in this State that the courts have the power, and it is their duty in proper cases, to declare an act of the General Assembly unconstitutional — but it must be plainly and clearly … town, special district, or other unit of local government to levy taxes on property, except for purposes authorized by general law uniformly applicable throughout the State, unless the tax is approved by a majority of the qualified

    Cited 34 timesPublished
  • State Ex Rel. Corporation Commission v. Dunn

    174 N.C. 679 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 5, 1917

    “Strictly speaking, the-widow’s share should be considered immune, rather than exempt, from an inheritance tax. It is free, rather than freed, from such tax. … This brief review of the subject, based upon the authority of Coke and Blackstone, shows very clearly that we can derive no aid in the construction of our law from old and obsolete rules and customs which have been ignored

    Cited 21 timesPublished
  • State v. Kivett

    321 N.C. 404 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Feb 3, 1988

    Amy Suttle, who was qualified as an expert in pediatric gastroenterology, testified that she examined the victim on 22 October 1985. … The additional delay occasioned by a heavy snowfall was clearly reasonable and without fault on the part of the State.

    Cited 10 timesPublished
  • American National Bank v. Dew

    175 N.C. 79 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 23, 1917

    indorsement the purpose of the deposit of the certificate with Blu-menburgh, that it was as security for a specified sum of money, and thus imparted notice to all subsequent purchasers or assignees that the pledgee held only a qualified … This makes the plaintiff clearly a bona fide holder for value before due, and precludes the defense which the defendant attempts to make here,” citing Body v. Jewson, 33 Wis., 402 -409.

    Cited 12 timesPublished
  • State v. Womble

    343 N.C. 667 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jul 31, 1996

    During jury selection, the trial court asked prospective juror James Grange a series of death-qualifying questions. Mr. … The Supreme Court established a three-part test to determine if a prosecutor has impermissibly excluded a juror based on race. First, the defendant must establish a prima facie case of purposeful discrimination.

    Cited 38 timesPublished
  • Hoke Cnty. Bd. of Educ. v. State of N.C.

    Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 4, 2022

    In other words, Judge Manning clearly understood that the problem is not with education policy or funding; rather, the problem is with implementation and delivery by the education establishment. … The problem arises not only because the trial court imposed a remedy without first establishing a violation, but because the chosen remedy clearly violates our constitution. b.

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • State v. Sanders

    317 N.C. 602 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Aug 12, 1986

    They also contend that the trial court erred by allowing the State to “death qualify” the jury. … All of the evidence tended to show clearly that the shoes were in an area within his immediate control and were items which could easily be concealed or destroyed.

    Cited 16 timesPublished
  • Paul v. . Washington

    134 N.C. 363 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Mar 8, 1904

    the members of the boards of aldermen of cities and towns, individually or personally, for municipal officers who enact ordinances under a claim of power from the legislative branch of the government are vested with the immunities … As we have said we have our doubts about this matter, but as that part of the ordinance (377) is not clearly unreasonable, and remembering that the board of aldermen have full opportunity to judge of *Page 275 such a necessity

    Cited 8 timesPublished
  • Hoke Cnty. Bd. of Educ. v. State of N.C.

    Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 4, 2022

    In other words, Judge Manning clearly understood that the problem is not with education policy or funding; rather, the problem is with implementation and delivery by the education establishment. … The problem arises not only because the trial court imposed a remedy without first establishing a violation, but because the chosen remedy clearly violates our constitution. b.

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • State v. Clegg

    Supreme Court of North Carolina · Feb 11, 2022

    If so, the defendant has established a Batson violation. … Jeffreys was also clearly erroneous. Snyder, 552 U.S. at 478.

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • SELC v. N.C. Railroad

    Supreme Court of North Carolina · Aug 13, 2021

    Parties’ Arguments is established as a staff agency of the General Assembly. … As a result, certain relevant statutory provisions and the decisions of the Attorney General and the State Ethics Commission, which clearly constitute persuasive authority that sheds light on the question

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • State v. Charles Phillips Bond

    345 N.C. 1 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 6, 1996

    Robbins was a qualified juror and that it was error for the trial court to reopen voir dire. We disagree. … First, a criminal defendant must establish a prima facie case of intentional discrimination by the prosecutor.

    Cited 61 timesPublished
  • State v. Scott

    182 N.C. 865 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 30, 1921

    The function of this board is to examine applicants and grant certificates, as certified public accountants of the State of North Carolina, to those giving evidence by such examination that they are qualified. … This was a fact established, and not even a mandatory injunction could change it.

    Cited 38 timesPublished

Ask Donna

Ask Donna

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.