5 North Carolina opinions name it 1 courts 2020–2025 4 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 |
|---|---|---|
Wilson, Trustee, C. v. . Jenkins, Pub Treas'rgreen2 sentences2022V, § 7(1). ¶ 251 As this Court unanimously noted just two years ago, “the appropriations clause states in language no man can misunderstand that the legislative power is supreme over the public purse.” Cooper v. Berger, 376 N.C. 22 , 36–37, 852 S.E.2d 46 , 58 (2020) (emphasis added); see also Wilson v. Jenkins, 72 N.C. 5, 6 (1875) (“The General Assembly has absolute control over the finances of the State.”). 2022V, § 7(1). ¶ 251 As this Court unanimously noted just two years ago, “the appropriations clause states in language no man can misunderstand that the legislative power is supreme over the public purse.” Cooper v. Berger, 376 N.C. 22 , 36–37, 852 S.E.2d 46 , 58 (2020) (emphasis added); see also Wilson v. Jenkins, 72 N.C. 5, 6 (1875) (“The General Assembly has absolute control over the finances of the State.”). | 3 | 3 |
Corum v. University of North Carolinagreen1 sentence2025See Corum, 330 N.C. at 785–86 (“The doctrine of sovereign immunity cannot stand as a barrier to North Carolina citizens who seek to remedy violations of their rights guaranteed by the [North Carolina Constitution’s] Declaration of Rights.”). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Davisgreen2 sentences2020As a result,, the appropriations clause “states in language no man can misunderstand that the legislative power is supreme over the public purse.” State v. Davis, 270 N.C. 1, 14 , 153 S.E.2d 749, 758 (1967). 2020As a result,, the appropriations clause “states in language no man can misunderstand that the legislative power is supreme over the public purse.” State v. Davis, 270 N.C. 1, 14 , 153 S.E.2d 749, 758 (1967). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in North Carolina. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
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.