5 North Carolina opinions name it 3 courts 1993–2020 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Hensley v. Eckerhartgreen2 sentences2018Controlling precedent in North Carolina has long-recognized that “[w]here the plaintiff has failed to prevail on a claim that is distinct in all respects from his successful claims, the hours spent on the unsuccessful claim should be excluded in considering the amount of a reasonable fee.” Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 440 (1983); see Morris v. Scenera Research, LLC, 229 N.C. 1995In that case, the plaintiff class members had not won on all of their claims and the Supreme Court held that where the plaintiff class “has failed to prevail on a claim that is distinct in all respects from his successful claims, the hours spent on the unsuccessful claim should be excluded in considering the amount of a reasonable fee.” Id. at 440 , 76 L. | 1 | 2 |
Morris v. Scenera Research, LLCgreen2 sentences2018Controlling precedent in North Carolina has long-recognized that “[w]here the plaintiff has failed to prevail on a claim that is distinct in all respects from his successful claims, the hours spent on the unsuccessful claim should be excluded in considering the amount of a reasonable fee.” Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 440 (1983); see Morris v. Scenera Research, LLC, 229 N.C. 2018App. 31, 58 , 747 S.E.2d 362, 378 (2013) (noting that North Carolina appellate precedent concerning apportionment of attorneys’ fees relies upon the reasoning in Hensley), rev’d on other grounds, 368 N.C. 857 , 788 S.E.2d 154 (2016). | 1 | 1 |
Anderson v. Great Republic Life Insurance Co.green1 sentence1993See Anderson, 106 P.2d at 80 (“[e]ven if it turns out that a case is made for the interference of the state, so long as the defense was made in good faith and upon reasonable grounds, there is apparent justice in subjecting the property and fund involved in the litigation to expenses incurred in discharging a general duty cast upon the corporation and its trustees to take all reasonable means for its protection”). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Vass v. COMPREHENSIVE MAJOR MEDICAL PLAN
green
2 sentences2020Vass, 324 N.C. at 403–04, 379 S.E.2d at 27 . 2020Vass, 324 N.C. at 403–04, 379 S.E.2d at 27 . | 2 | 2020–2020 |
Morris v. Scenera Research, LLC
green
2 sentences2018App. 31, 58 , 747 S.E.2d 362, 378 (2013) (noting that North Carolina appellate precedent concerning apportionment of attorneys’ fees relies upon the reasoning in Hensley), rev’d on other grounds, 368 N.C. 857 , 788 S.E.2d 154 (2016). 2018App. 31, 58 , 747 S.E.2d 362, 378 (2013) (noting that North Carolina appellate precedent concerning apportionment of attorneys’ fees relies upon the reasoning in Hensley), rev’d on other grounds, 368 N.C. 857 , 788 S.E.2d 154 (2016). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
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.