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.
5 North Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 2012–2022 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Best v. Duke Universitygreen2 sentences2022Specifically, plaintiffs argue that “[a] factfinder’s determination as to whether a game complies with the predominant-factor test is reviewed deferentially.” Plaintiffs contend “the proper standard of review of a trial court’s predominance analysis in a bench trial would be whether competent evidence supports the factfinder’s determination that skill or dexterity predominate over chance in a particular game.” Plaintiffs argue that “because the factfinder, whether judge or jury, is in the best position to conduct the balance or ‘weighing’ required by the predominant-factor test, the applicatio 2022Specifically, plaintiffs argue that “[a] factfinder’s determination as to whether a game complies with the predominant-factor test is reviewed deferentially.” Plaintiffs contend “the proper standard of review of a trial court’s predominance analysis in a bench trial would be whether competent evidence supports the factfinder’s determination that skill or dexterity predominate over chance in a particular game.” Plaintiffs argue that “because the factfinder, whether judge or jury, is in the best position to conduct the balance or ‘weighing’ required by the predominant-factor test, the applicatio | 2 | 2 |
Beroth Oil Co. v. North Carolina Department of Transportationgreen2 sentences2014See Beroth, _ N.C. at _, 757 S.E.2d at 470 (“A class exists when each of the members has an interest in either the same issue of law or of fact, and that issue predominates over issues affecting only individual class members.”). 2014See id. at _, 757 S.E.2d at 470 n.2 (“Therefore, we review the trial court’s determination of whether plaintiffs established the actual existence of a class for abuse of discretion.”). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. . Gupton
green
2 sentences2022Specifically, plaintiffs argue that “[a] factfinder’s determination as to whether a game complies with the predominant-factor test is reviewed deferentially.” Plaintiffs contend “the proper standard of review of a trial court’s predominance analysis in a bench trial would be whether competent evidence supports the factfinder’s determination that skill or dexterity predominate over chance in a particular game.” Plaintiffs argue that “because the factfinder, whether judge or jury, is in the best position to conduct the balance or ‘weighing’ required by the predominant-factor test, the applicatio 2022Specifically, plaintiffs argue that “[a] factfinder’s determination as to whether a game complies with the predominant-factor test is reviewed deferentially.” Plaintiffs contend “the proper standard of review of a trial court’s predominance analysis in a bench trial would be whether competent evidence supports the factfinder’s determination that skill or dexterity predominate over chance in a particular game.” Plaintiffs argue that “because the factfinder, whether judge or jury, is in the best position to conduct the balance or ‘weighing’ required by the predominant-factor test, the applicatio | 2 | 2022–2022 |
Miller v. Johnson
green
2 sentences2015While the precise issue identified in ALBC is not present in the case before us, the takeaway is relevant: the predominance test — whether “the legislature subordinated traditional race-neutral districting principles ... to racial considerations,” Miller, 515 U.S. at 916 , 115 S. Ct. at 2488 , 132 L. 2015While the precise issue identified in ALBC is not present in the case before us, the takeaway is relevant: the predominance test — whether “the legislature subordinated traditional race-neutral districting principles ... to racial considerations,” Miller, 515 U.S. at 916 , 115 S. Ct. at 2488 , 132 L. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Blitz v. Agean, Inc.
green
1 sentence2012Blitz, 197 N.C. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
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.