Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
6 North Carolina opinions name it 1 courts 2002–2025 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Mark Group International, Inc. v. Stillgreen2 sentences2002Generally in North Carolina, “when a jurisdiction is specified in a provision of contract, the provision generally will not be enforced as a mandatory selection clause without some further language that indicates the parties’ intent to make jurisdiction exclusive.” Id. at 568 , 566 S.E.2d at 162 . 2002Generally in North Carolina, “when a jurisdiction is specified in a provision of contract, the provision generally will not be enforced as a mandatory selection clause without some further language that indicates the parties’ intent to make jurisdiction exclusive.” Id. at 568 , 566 S.E.2d at 162 . | 1 | 3 |
Epic Games, Inc. v. Murphy-Johnsongreen2 sentences2025“Issues relating to the interpretation of terms in an arbitration clause are matters of law, which this Court reviews de novo.” Epic Games, Inc. v. Murphy-Johnson, 247 N.C. App. 54, 61-62 , 785 S.E.2d 137, 142-43 (2016). - 15 - generally will not be enforced as a mandatory selection clause without some further language that indicates the parties’ intent to make jurisdiction exclusive.” Mark Grp. 2025“Issues relating to the interpretation of terms in an arbitration clause are matters of law, which this Court reviews de novo.” Epic Games, Inc. v. Murphy-Johnson, 247 N.C. App. 54, 61-62 , 785 S.E.2d 137, 142-43 (2016). - 15 - generally will not be enforced as a mandatory selection clause without some further language that indicates the parties’ intent to make jurisdiction exclusive.” Mark Grp. | 1 | 1 |
Printing Services of Greensboro, Inc. v. American Capital Group, Inc.green2 sentences2020Printing Servs. of Greensboro, Inc. v. Am. Capital Grp., Inc., 180 N.C. App. 70, 74 , 637 S.E.2d 230, 232 (2006), aff’d, 361 N.C. 347 , 643 S.E.2d 586 (2007). 2020Printing Servs. of Greensboro, Inc. v. Am. Capital Grp., Inc., 180 N.C. App. 70, 74 , 637 S.E.2d 230, 232 (2006), aff’d, 361 N.C. 347 , 643 S.E.2d 586 (2007). | 1 | 1 |
S & D Coffee, Inc. v. Gei Autowrappersgreen1 sentence2002See, e.g., S&D Coffee, Inc. v. GEI Auto Wrappers, 995 F. Supp. 607, 610 (M.D. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in North Carolina. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Printing Services of Greensboro, Inc. v. American Capital Group, Inc.
neutral
2 sentences2020Printing Servs. of Greensboro, Inc. v. Am. Capital Grp., Inc., 180 N.C. App. 70, 74 , 637 S.E.2d 230, 232 (2006), aff’d, 361 N.C. 347 , 643 S.E.2d 586 (2007). 2020Printing Servs. of Greensboro, Inc. v. Am. Capital Grp., Inc., 180 N.C. App. 70, 74 , 637 S.E.2d 230, 232 (2006), aff’d, 361 N.C. 347 , 643 S.E.2d 586 (2007). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Cable Tel Services, Inc. v. Overland Contracting, Inc.
green
2 sentences2016Venue Selection Clauses "Generally in North Carolina, when a jurisdiction is specified in a provision of contract, the provision generally will not be enforced as a mandatory selection clause without some further language that indicates the parties' intent to make jurisdiction exclusive." Cable Tel Servs., Inc. v. Overland Contracting, Inc., 154 N.C.App. 639 , 644, 574 S.E.2d 31 , 34-35 (2002) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted) (noting mandatory venue selection clauses have contained words such as "exclusive," "sole," or "only" to indicate that the contracting parties intended to 2016Venue Selection Clauses "Generally in North Carolina, when a jurisdiction is specified in a provision of contract, the provision generally will not be enforced as a mandatory selection clause without some further language that indicates the parties' intent to make jurisdiction exclusive." Cable Tel Servs., Inc. v. Overland Contracting, Inc., 154 N.C.App. 639 , 644, 574 S.E.2d 31 , 34-35 (2002) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted) (noting mandatory venue selection clauses have contained words such as "exclusive," "sole," or "only" to indicate that the contracting parties intended to | 1 | 2016–2016 |
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.