reasonably prudent person upon inquiry (North Carolina) · Go Syfert
← North Carolina issues

reasonably prudent person upon inquiry in North Carolina

5 North Carolina opinions name it 1 courts 1927–1966 0 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.

Followed or applied (1)

CaseFollowedCited
Wadford v. . Gillettegreen
nc · 1927 · cited in 4 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 1941–1966
2 sentences

1966Accord, Wadford v. Cillette, 193 N.C. 413 , 137 S.E. 314 .

1966Accord, Wadford v. Cillette, 193 N.C. 413 , 137 S.E. 314 .

14

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in North Carolina. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (6)

CaseCitedYears
Carawan v. . Clark neutral
nc · 1941
1 sentence

1966The burden then devolved *103 upon defendant, if it would sustain its insured’s cancellation of the policy, to show that it “(1) was ignorant of the mental incapacity; (2) had no notice thereof such as would put a reasonably prudent person upon inquiry; (3) paid a fair and full consideration; (4) took no unfair advantage of plaintiff; and (5) that the plaintiff has not restored and is not able to restore the consideration or to make adequate compensation therefor.” Carawan v. Clark, supra at 216, 13 S.E. 2d at 238 .

11966–1966
Sprinkle v. Wellborn. green
nc · 1905
1 sentence

1927Carr v. Holliday, 21 N. C., 344 ; Odom v. Riddick, 104 N. C., 515 ; Creekmore v. Baxter, 121 N. C., 31 ; Sprinkle v. Wellborn, 140 N. C., 163 ; Beeson v. Smith, 149 N. C., 142; West v. R.

11927–1927
Creekmore v. . Baxter neutral
nc · 1897
1 sentence

1927Carr v. Holliday, 21 N. C., 344 ; Odom v. Riddick, 104 N. C., 515 ; Creekmore v. Baxter, 121 N. C., 31 ; Sprinkle v. Wellborn, 140 N. C., 163 ; Beeson v. Smith, 149 N. C., 142; West v. R.

11927–1927
Beeson v. . Smith neutral
nc · 1908
1 sentence

1927Carr v. Holliday, 21 N. C., 344 ; Odom v. Riddick, 104 N. C., 515 ; Creekmore v. Baxter, 121 N. C., 31 ; Sprinkle v. Wellborn, 140 N. C., 163 ; Beeson v. Smith, 149 N. C., 142; West v. R.

11927–1927
Odom v. . Riddick green
· 1889
1 sentence

1927Carr v. Holliday, 21 N. C., 344 ; Odom v. Riddick, 104 N. C., 515 ; Creekmore v. Baxter, 121 N. C., 31 ; Sprinkle v. Wellborn, 140 N. C., 163 ; Beeson v. Smith, 149 N. C., 142; West v. R.

11927–1927
Carr v. . Holliday neutral
nc · 1836
1 sentence

1927Carr v. Holliday, 21 N. C., 344 ; Odom v. Riddick, 104 N. C., 515 ; Creekmore v. Baxter, 121 N. C., 31 ; Sprinkle v. Wellborn, 140 N. C., 163 ; Beeson v. Smith, 149 N. C., 142; West v. R.

11927–1927

Where else courts name it

TX 9 (1897–1981) MO 5 (1986–2011) NC 5 (1927–1966) IL 2 (1887–1949)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check