Legal Opinion

State v. . Absher

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided November 6, 1946PublishedCited by 15 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSeawell, J.

The prime purpose of appellate review is to discover _ and correct prejudicial error. Often its correction necessitates a new trial; but it is not mandatory on the appellate court to treat separately 94 exceptions to the trial, all, allegedly, involving as many fatal errors, or to furnish a complete pattern for a new trial. Out of the objections to the conduct of the trial, a few of which may be meritorious, and a great many no doubt taken as an anchor to windward, we consider two, more deeply based and at the same time more prominently thrown up from the melange of the legal battle.

On the…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. State v. . CuretonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1940
  2. S. v. . SheltonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1913
  3. Barrow Ex Rel. Barrow v. KeelSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1938
  4. Ledwell v. Shenandoah Milling Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1939

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. State v. HankersonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1975
  2. State v. BaldwinSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1970
  3. State v. SparksSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1974
  4. State v. SimmonsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1975
  5. State v. WetmoreSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1975

10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API