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.
34 North Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1932–2012 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 |
|---|---|---|
Smith v. Simpsongreen2 sentences2008“At best the family purpose doctrine is an anomaly in the law.” Smith v. Simpson, 260 N.C. 601, 612 , 133 S.E.2d 474, 483 (1963). 2008“At best the family purpose doctrine is an anomaly in the law.” Smith v. Simpson, 260 N.C. 601, 612 , 133 S.E.2d 474, 483 (1963). | 1 | 5 |
Byrne v. Bordeauxgreen2 sentences2003“Under the family purpose doctrine, the owner or person with ultimate control over a vehicle is held liable for the negligent operation of that vehicle by a member of his household.” Byrne v. Bordeaux, 85 N.C. 1995The first test to be met in order for plaintiff to recover under the family purpose doctrine is that “the operator was a member of the family or household of the owner or person with control and was living in such person’s home.” Byrne, supra, at 264-65 , 354 S.E.2d at 279 . | 1 | 4 |
Ewing v. Thompsongreen2 sentences1963Since this Court first recognized it in Linville v. Nissen, 162 N.C. 95 , 77 S.E. 1096 (1913) (See Griffin v. Pancoast, supra, p. 55) it has said many times that the family purpose doctrine is “firmly embedded on the law of this 'State.” Grindstaff v. Watts, 254 N.C. 568 , 119 S.E. 2d 784 ; Ewing v. Thompson, 233 N.C. 564 , 65 S.E. 2d 17 ; Elliott v. Killian, Goode v. Barton, supra. However, the majority now declares that the 'doctrine is an anomaly in the law which the Court is not disposed to extend; that the Court wais reluctant to adopt it initially; and that its importance has been greatl 1963Since this Court first recognized it in Linville v. Nissen, 162 N.C. 95 , 77 S.E. 1096 (1913) (See Griffin v. Pancoast, supra, p. 55) it has said many times that the family purpose doctrine is “firmly embedded on the law of this 'State.” Grindstaff v. Watts, 254 N.C. 568 , 119 S.E. 2d 784 ; Ewing v. Thompson, 233 N.C. 564 , 65 S.E. 2d 17 ; Elliott v. Killian, Goode v. Barton, supra. However, the majority now declares that the 'doctrine is an anomaly in the law which the Court is not disposed to extend; that the Court wais reluctant to adopt it initially; and that its importance has been greatl | 1 | 4 |
Williams v. Wachovia Bank & Trust Co.green2 sentences2000Williams v. Wachovia Bank and Trust Co., 292 N.C. 416, 420 , 233 S.E.2d 589, 592 (1977), citing Grindstaff v. Watts, 254 N.C. 568 , 119 S.E.2d 784 (1961). 2000Williams v. Wachovia Bank and Trust Co., 292 N.C. 416, 420 , 233 S.E.2d 589, 592 (1977), citing Grindstaff v. Watts, 254 N.C. 568 , 119 S.E.2d 784 (1961). | 1 | 2 |
Cox v. Shawgreen2 sentences1984Second, "under the family purpose doctrine... negligence would have been equally imputable to the father had he not been present." Id. at 363-64 , 139 S.E.2d at 678 . 1984Second, "under the family purpose doctrine... negligence would have been equally imputable to the father had he not been present." Id. at 363-64 , 139 S.E.2d at 678 . | 1 | 2 |
Robertson v. . Aldridgegreen2 sentences1957Queen City Coach Co. v. Burrell, supra; Ewing v. Thompson, 233 N.C. 564 , 65 S.E. 2d 17 ; Hawes v. Haynes, 219 N.C. 535 , 14 S.E. 2d 503 ; Vaughn v. Booker, 217 N.C. 479 , 8 S.E. 2d 603 ; Robertson v. Aldridge, 185 N.C. 292 , 116 S.E. 742 ; Clark v. Sweaney, 176 N.C. 529 , 97 S.E. 474 ; Brittingham v. Stadiem, 151 N.C. 299 , 66 S.E. 128 . 1953See Ewing v. Thompson, 233 N.C. 564 , 65 S.E. 2d 17 , and among other cases see Robertson v. Aldridge, 185 N.C. 292 , 116 S.E. 742 . | 1 | 2 |
Robertson ex rel. King v. Aldridgegreen2 sentences1957Queen City Coach Co. v. Burrell, supra; Ewing v. Thompson, 233 N.C. 564 , 65 S.E. 2d 17 ; Hawes v. Haynes, 219 N.C. 535 , 14 S.E. 2d 503 ; Vaughn v. Booker, 217 N.C. 479 , 8 S.E. 2d 603 ; Robertson v. Aldridge, 185 N.C. 292 , 116 S.E. 742 ; Clark v. Sweaney, 176 N.C. 529 , 97 S.E. 474 ; Brittingham v. Stadiem, 151 N.C. 299 , 66 S.E. 128 . 1953See Ewing v. Thompson, 233 N.C. 564 , 65 S.E. 2d 17 , and among other cases see Robertson v. Aldridge, 185 N.C. 292 , 116 S.E. 742 . | 1 | 2 |
Temple v. Chastaingreen1 sentence2008See Temple v. Chastain, 109 S.E.2d 897, 899 (Ga. Ct. App. 1959); Durso v. A. D. | 1 | 1 |
Passmore v. Smithgreen2 sentences2008See Passmore, 266 N.C. at 719 , 147 S.E.2d at 241 ; Loy, 156 N.C. 2008See Passmore, 266 N.C. at 719 , 147 S.E.2d at 241 ; Loy, 156 N.C. | 1 | 1 |
Coble v. Knightgreen2 sentences2000Id. at 654 , 503 S.E.2d at 704 (negligent entrustment requires “proof of ownership”). 2000Coble at 653 , 503 S.E.2d at 704 . | 1 | 1 |
Carver v. Carvergreen2 sentences1987Id; Grindstaff v. Watts, 254 N.C. 568 , 119 S.E. 2d 784 (1961) and cases cited and discussed therein; see also Carver v. Carver, 310 N.C. 669 , 314 S.E. 2d 739 (1984). 1987Id; Grindstaff v. Watts, 254 N.C. 568 , 119 S.E. 2d 784 (1961) and cases cited and discussed therein; see also Carver v. Carver, 310 N.C. 669 , 314 S.E. 2d 739 (1984). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Grindstaff v. Watts
green
2 sentences1982In Grindstaff v. Watts, 254 N.C. 568 , 119 S.E.2d 784 (1961) the plaintiff sought to extend the family purpose doctrine to the operation of motorboats. 1982In Grindstaff v. Watts, 254 N.C. 568 , 119 S.E.2d 784 (1961) the plaintiff sought to extend the family purpose doctrine to the operation of motorboats. | 9 | 1962–2000 |
Lynn v. Clark
neutral
2 sentences1966The relationship between the husband and the wife, with respect to the automobile, is analogous to that of master and servant, or principal and agent, and not that of bailor and bailee.” In Lynn v. Clark, 252 N.C. 289 , 113 S.E. 2d 427 , Denny, J., later C.J., speaking for the Court, said: “In our opinion, the mere allegation that a car owned by a defendant is a family purpose car is an insufficient allegation upon which to recover under the family purpose doctrine. *163 “Ordinarily, a cause of action based solely on the family purpose doctrine is stated by allegations to the effect that at th 1966The relationship between the husband and the wife, with respect to the automobile, is analogous to that of master and servant, or principal and agent, and not that of bailor and bailee.” In Lynn v. Clark, 252 N.C. 289 , 113 S.E. 2d 427 , Denny, J., later C.J., speaking for the Court, said: “In our opinion, the mere allegation that a car owned by a defendant is a family purpose car is an insufficient allegation upon which to recover under the family purpose doctrine. *163 “Ordinarily, a cause of action based solely on the family purpose doctrine is stated by allegations to the effect that at th | 6 | 1961–1977 |
Watts v. . Lefler
neutral
2 sentences1977Lynn v. Clark, 252 N.C. 289 , 113 S.E. 2d 427 ; Watts v. Lefler, 190 N.C. 722 , 130 S.E. 630 . 1977Lynn v. Clark, 252 N.C. 289 , 113 S.E. 2d 427 ; Watts v. Lefler, 190 N.C. 722 , 130 S.E. 630 . | 4 | 1963–1977 |
Grier v. . Woodside
green
2 sentences1932Conceding without deciding that the family-purpose doctrine adopted in this State with respect to the use of automobiles (Grier v. Woodside, 200 N. C., 759 , 158 S. E., 491 ) is applicable in the instant case, we are of the opinion that the evidence offered by plaintiff *727 fails to show that the death of her intestate was caused by the negligence of defendant’s husband, as alleged in the complaint. 1932Conceding without deciding that the family-purpose doctrine adopted in this State with respect to the use of automobiles (Grier v. Woodside, 200 N. C., 759 , 158 S. E., 491 ) is applicable in the instant case, we are of the opinion that the evidence offered by plaintiff *727 fails to show that the death of her intestate was caused by the negligence of defendant’s husband, as alleged in the complaint. | 3 | 1932–1963 |
Matthews v. . Cheatham
neutral
2 sentences1963In Matthews v. Cheatham, 210 N.C. 592 , 188 S.E. 87 , the minor daughter of male defendant won an ¡automobile in a contest and took title in her own name; isihe was a member of her .father’s household, kept the oar in her father’s garage with his automobile, and drove it only with the ¡specific' consent of her parents; .all members of the family used it 'and the father maintained it, bought the gasoline 'and oil and paid for repairs, ¡and listed and paid taxes on .it; her mother .was driving it at the time of the accident. 1963In Matthews v. Cheatham, 210 N.C. 592 , 188 S.E. 87 , the minor daughter of male defendant won an ¡automobile in a contest and took title in her own name; isihe was a member of her .father’s household, kept the oar in her father’s garage with his automobile, and drove it only with the ¡specific' consent of her parents; .all members of the family used it 'and the father maintained it, bought the gasoline 'and oil and paid for repairs, ¡and listed and paid taxes on .it; her mother .was driving it at the time of the accident. | 3 | 1953–1963 |
Vaughn v. . Booker
green
2 sentences1961Vaughn v. Booker, 217 N.C. 479 , 8 S.E. 2d 603 . 1961Vaughn v. Booker, 217 N.C. 479 , 8 S.E. 2d 603 . | 3 | 1957–1961 |
Tart v. Martin
green
2 sentences2002This Court reviewed the family purpose doctrine standard in Tart v. Martin, 137 N.C. 2002This Court reviewed the family purpose doctrine standard in Tart v. Martin, 137 N.C. | 2 | 2000–2002 |
McGee v. . Crawford
neutral
2 sentences1961“Ordinarily, a cause of action based solely on the family purpose doctrine is stated by allegations to the effect that at the time of the accident the operator was a member of his family or household and was living at home with the defendant; that the automobile involved in the accident was a family car and was owned, provided, and maintained for the general use, pleasure, and convenience of the family, and was being so used by a member of the family at the time of the accident with the consent, knowledge, and ■ approval of the owner of the car. 5A Am.1 Jur., Automobiles and Highway Traffic, s 1961“Ordinarily, a cause of action based solely on the family purpose doctrine is stated by allegations to the effect that at the time of the accident the operator was a member of his family or household and was living at home with the defendant; that the automobile involved in the accident was a family car and was owned, provided, and maintained for the general use, pleasure, and convenience of the family, and was being so used by a member of the family at the time of the accident with the consent, knowledge, and ■ approval of the owner of the car. 5A Am.1 Jur., Automobiles and Highway Traffic, s | 2 | 1935–1961 |
Taylor v. Brinkman
green
2 sentences2012Id. at 768 , 425 S.E.2d at 430 . 2012Id. at 768 , 425 S.E.2d at 430 . | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Loy v. Martin
green
1 sentence2008See Passmore, 266 N.C. at 719 , 147 S.E.2d at 241 ; Loy, 156 N.C. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Tart v. Martin
green
2 sentences2002App. 371 , 527 S.E.2d 708 , rev’d on other grounds, 353 N.C. 252 , 540 S.E.2d 332 (2000). 2002App. 371 , 527 S.E.2d 708 , rev’d on other grounds, 353 N.C. 252 , 540 S.E.2d 332 (2000). | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Taylor v. Brinkman
green
2 sentences2000In Taylor v. Brinkman, 118 N.C.App. 96 , 453 S.E.2d 560 (1995) (affirming summary judgment in favor of alleged owner under the family purpose doctrine), we held that “the owner or person with ultimate control over the vehicle” may be held liable only if the plaintiff shows that (1) the operator was a member of the family or household of the owner or person with control and was living in such person’s home; (2) that the vehicle was owned, provided and maintained for the general use, pleasure and convenience of the family; and (3) that the vehicle was being so used with the express or implied co 2000In Taylor v. Brinkman, 118 N.C.App. 96 , 453 S.E.2d 560 (1995) (affirming summary judgment in favor of alleged owner under the family purpose doctrine), we held that “the owner or person with ultimate control over the vehicle” may be held liable only if the plaintiff shows that (1) the operator was a member of the family or household of the owner or person with control and was living in such person’s home; (2) that the vehicle was owned, provided and maintained for the general use, pleasure and convenience of the family; and (3) that the vehicle was being so used with the express or implied co | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Ohio Casualty Insurance v. Anderson
green
1 sentence2000(Motor Vehicle and Financial Responsibility Act of 1953) and Ohio Casualty Insurance Co. v. Anderson, 59 N.C. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Evans v. Morrow
green
1 sentence1999Id. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Camp v. Camp
green
1 sentence1995Camp v. Camp, 89 N.C. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
In Re the Estate of Ives
green
2 sentences1984All propositions in the foregoing argument, except for the proposition that the mother's negligence is imputed to the father, are supported by our cases: In In re Estate of Ives, 248 N.C. 176 , 102 S.E.2d 807 (1958), the mother was killed in an automobile collision while riding as a passenger in one of the automobiles being operated by her son, Sam Ives. 1984All propositions in the foregoing argument, except for the proposition that the mother's negligence is imputed to the father, are supported by our cases: In In re Estate of Ives, 248 N.C. 176 , 102 S.E.2d 807 (1958), the mother was killed in an automobile collision while riding as a passenger in one of the automobiles being operated by her son, Sam Ives. | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Meinhardt v. Vaughn
green
2 sentences1977In Meinhardt v. Vaughn, 159 Tenn. 272 , 17 S.W. 2d 5 , the Tennessee Supreme Court indicated that the reasoning which forms the basis for the application of the family purpose doctrine to automobile accidents applies with equal force to accidents involving motorcycles. 1977In Meinhardt v. Vaughn, 159 Tenn. 272 , 17 S.W. 2d 5 , the Tennessee Supreme Court indicated that the reasoning which forms the basis for the application of the family purpose doctrine to automobile accidents applies with equal force to accidents involving motorcycles. | 1 | 1977–1977 |
Kelly v. International Harvester Company
green
2 sentences1971When the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, as it must be in passing upon the correctness of the directed verdict against him, Kelly v. Harvester Co., 278 N.C. 153 , 179 S.E. 2d 396 , we think that the jury could so find. 1971When the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, as it must be in passing upon the correctness of the directed verdict against him, Kelly v. Harvester Co., 278 N.C. 153 , 179 S.E. 2d 396 , we think that the jury could so find. | 1 | 1971–1971 |
Goode v. Barton
green
2 sentences1971Goode v. Barton, 238 N.C. 492 , 78 S.E. 2d 398 . 1971Goode v. Barton, 238 N.C. 492 , 78 S.E. 2d 398 . | 1 | 1971–1971 |
| Dunn v. Caylor green | 1 | 1971–1971 |
| Heath v. Kirkman green | 1 | 1969–1969 |
| Tart v. Register green | 1 | 1963–1963 |
| Linville v. . Nissen green | 1 | 1963–1963 |
| Florenzie v. Fey neutral | 1 | 1961–1961 |
| Brittingham v. . Stadiem neutral | 1 | 1957–1957 |
| Clark v. . Sweaney green | 1 | 1957–1957 |
| Hawes v. . Haynes green | 1 | 1957–1957 |
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.