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 1 courts 2010–2022 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 |
|---|---|---|
Frampton v. Univ. of N.C. At Chapel Hillgreen2 sentences2020Further, “[i]f the 10 Petitioner filed a “Motion to Strike Respondents-Appellants’ Brief on Cross-Appeal” on 23 March 2020, arguing that Respondents’ brief “grossly violates Rule 28(b)(3) and (5) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure and thereby grossly disregards the requirement of a fair presentation of the issues to the appellate court.” We deny Petitioner’s motion because Respondents’ brief includes a sufficient summary of this case’s procedural history and relevant facts in accordance with Rule 28(b)(3) and (5). - 27 - only authority for the agency’s interpretation of the law 2020Further, “[i]f the 10 Petitioner filed a “Motion to Strike Respondents-Appellants’ Brief on Cross-Appeal” on 23 March 2020, arguing that Respondents’ brief “grossly violates Rule 28(b)(3) and (5) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure and thereby grossly disregards the requirement of a fair presentation of the issues to the appellate court.” We deny Petitioner’s motion because Respondents’ brief includes a sufficient summary of this case’s procedural history and relevant facts in accordance with Rule 28(b)(3) and (5). - 27 - only authority for the agency’s interpretation of the law | 1 | 1 |
Sink v. Eastergreen2 sentences2010See id. at 196 , 217 S.E.2d at 541 . 2010See id. at 196 , 217 S.E.2d at 541 . | 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 |
|---|---|---|
In re B.W.
green
2 sentences2022Disposition Order ¶ 27 Mother argues that the disposition order must be reversed because the trial court “abused its discretion by unnecessarily separating Ken from his mother.” 2 Because the unchallenged findings of fact support the trial court’s adjudication of neglect, we do not reach Respondents’ challenge to certain findings pertaining to allegedly stolen property and other findings of fact on the ground that they were based upon the trial court’s erroneous admission of expert testimony from Barnes. ¶ 28 “The district court has broad discretion to fashion a disposition from the prescribed 2022Disposition Order ¶ 27 Mother argues that the disposition order must be reversed because the trial court “abused its discretion by unnecessarily separating Ken from his mother.” 2 Because the unchallenged findings of fact support the trial court’s adjudication of neglect, we do not reach Respondents’ challenge to certain findings pertaining to allegedly stolen property and other findings of fact on the ground that they were based upon the trial court’s erroneous admission of expert testimony from Barnes. ¶ 28 “The district court has broad discretion to fashion a disposition from the prescribed | 2 | 2022–2022 |
Rainey v. North Carolina Department of Public Instruction
green
2 sentences2020Instruction, 361 N.C. 679 , 681-82, 652 S.E.2d 251 , 252-53 (2007)). 2020Instruction, 361 N.C. 679 , 681-82, 652 S.E.2d 251 , 252-53 (2007)). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Frye v. Wiles
green
1 sentence2011These findings and the superior court’s conclusion do not demonstrate “a clear abuse of discretion.” See Frye, 33 N.C. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
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.