G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, 2014–2018 ·
…standing most often turns on whether the party has alleged 'injury in fact' in light of the applicable statutes or caselaw.
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 2004 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2004
2015
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Time Warner Entm't advance/newhouse P'ship v. Town of Landis, North Carolina
north carolina courts are not constrained by the 'case or controversy' requirement of article iii of the united states constitution.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Town of Nags Head v. Matthew Toloczko
At this juncture, however, we are prepared to make such a statement given that the Supreme Court of North Carolina declined discretionary review during the pen- *398 dency of this appeal, see Cherry, 733 S.E.2d at 85-86 , as it did the first time it had the opportunity to decide which entities have legal standing to press public trust rights, see Neuse River, 577 S.E.2d at 628.
discussed
Cited "see"
News and Observer Pub. Co. v. Easley
See Neuse River Found., Inc. v. Smithfield Foods, Inc., 155 N.C.App. 110 , 118, 574 S.E.2d 48 , 54 (2002) ("It is critical for our purposes to remain focused on North Carolina's timeless separation of powers doctrine rather than be distracted by public policy debate embedded in any ephemeral issue of a case."), disc. review denied, 356 N.C. 675 , 577 S.E.2d 628 (2003).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
NEUGENT
v.
NEUGENT
v.
NEUGENT
No. 250P02.
Supreme Court of North Carolina.
Feb 27, 2003.
Published
Citer courts: North Carolina Business Court (1)
Petition by defendants for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 denied 27 February 2003. Petition by defendants for writ of certiorari to review the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 27 February 2003.