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.
28 North Carolina opinions name it 3 courts 1994–2022 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 |
|---|---|---|
Barger v. McCoy Hillard & Parksgreen2 sentences2022Under the special duty exception, “the duty must be one that the alleged wrongdoer owed directly to the shareholder as an individual.” Barger, 346 N.C. at 659 . 2022In Green, however, the Supreme Court explained that [t]o recover under the special duty exception, there must be a special duty “that defendant[ ] owed . . . to plaintiffs that was personal to plaintiffs as [creditors] and was separate and distinct from the duty defendant[ ] owed the corporation.” Barger, 346 N.C. at 661 . | 2 | 13 |
Braswell v. Braswellgreen2 sentences1996Moreover, to make out a prima facie case under the special duty exception, “plaintiff must show that an actual promise was made by *548 the police to create a special duty, that this promise was reasonably relied upon by the plaintiff, and that this reliance was causally related to the injury ultimately suffered by plaintiff.” Braswell, 330 N.C. at 371 , 410 S.E.2d at 902 . 1996Moreover, to make out a prima facie case under the special duty exception, “plaintiff must show that an actual promise was made by *548 the police to create a special duty, that this promise was reasonably relied upon by the plaintiff, and that this reliance was causally related to the injury ultimately suffered by plaintiff.” Braswell, 330 N.C. at 371 , 410 S.E.2d at 902 . | 2 | 8 |
Cockerham-Ellerbee v. Town of Jonesvillegreen2 sentences2008Most significantly, this' Court held that the allegations in Ms. Cockerham-Ellerbee’s complaint “are sufficient to state a claim falling under the special duty exception to the public duty doctrine.” Id. at 379 , 626 S.E.2d at 690 . 2008Most significantly, this' Court held that the allegations in Ms. Cockerham-Ellerbee’s complaint “are sufficient to state a claim falling under the special duty exception to the public duty doctrine.” Id. at 379 , 626 S.E.2d at 690 . | 1 | 2 |
Myers v. McGradygreen2 sentences2014See Myers v. McGrady, 360 N.C. 460, 468-69 , 628 S.E.2d 761, 767 (2006) (declining to address exceptions to public duty doctrine where plaintiffs did not raise them); Rev O, Inc. v. Woo, _ N.C. 2014See Myers v. McGrady, 360 N.C. 460, 468-69 , 628 S.E.2d 761, 767 (2006) (declining to address exceptions to public duty doctrine where plaintiffs did not raise them); Rev O, Inc. v. Woo, _ N.C. | 1 | 1 |
Lassiter v. Cohngreen1 sentence2014App. at 321 , 607 S.E.2d at 695 (concluding that officer’s management of accident scene “fell completely within Durham’s immunization of performing a public duty”). *308 Finally, because Plaintiff has not alleged the applicability of either the special relationship exception or the special duty exception to the public duty doctrine, we decline to address the potential applicability of these exceptions. | 1 | 1 |
Davis v. Messergreen2 sentences2000Cf. Davis v. Messer, 119 N.C. 2000App. 44, 56 , 457 S.E.2d 902, 910 (holding the following allegations stated a claim for relief under the special duty exception: “the Town .. . promised it would provide fire-fighting assistance and protection; the promised protection never arrived; and plaintiffs relied upon the promise to respond to the fire as their exclusive source of aid, resulting in the complete destruction of their home”), disc. rev. denied, 341 N.C. 647 , 462 S.E.2d 508 (1995). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Raymond James Capital Partners, L.P. v. Hayes
green
2 sentences2019Although Barger did not purport to identify an exhaustive list, our Court of Appeals has concluded that “the special duty exception clearly requires an articulation of some duty owed to a plaintiff that is distinct from the general fiduciary duties directors and officers owe to the corporation.” Id. at 580, 789 S.E.2d at 701 . 16. 2016Although Barger did not purport to identify an exhaustive list, the Court of Appeals has concluded that “the special duty exception clearly requires an articulation of some duty owed to a plaintiff that is distinct from the general fiduciary duties directors and officers owe to the corporation.” Hayes, 789 S.E.2d at 701 . 48. | 2 | 2016–2019 |
Howell v. Fisher
green
1 sentence2011Separate Injury Exception to Barger [34] For the "separate injury" exception to Barger to apply, the alleged injury must be "peculiar or personal to the shareholder" and "separate and distinct from any damage suffered by the corporation." Id. (quoting Howell v. Fisher, 49 N.C. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Stone v. North Carolina Department of Labor
green
2 sentences2007Id. at 482 , 495 S.E.2d at 717 (citing Braswell, 330 N.C. at 371 , 410 S.E.2d at 902 ); see also Cockerham-Ellerbee v. Town of Jonesville, 176 N.C.App. 372, 377 , 626 S.E.2d 685, 689 (2006) (quoting Braswell, 330 N.C. at 371 , 410 S.E.2d at 902 ). "[T]he `special duty' exception . . . is a very narrow one; it should be applied only when the promise, reliance, and causation are manifestly present." Braswell, 330 N.C. at 372 , 410 S.E.2d at 902 . 2007Id. at 482 , 495 S.E.2d at 717 (citing Braswell, 330 N.C. at 371 , 410 S.E.2d at 902 ); see also Cockerham-Ellerbee v. Town of Jonesville, 176 N.C. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Meyer v. Walls
green
1 sentence2005Id. at 372 , 410 S.E.2d at 902 . 3 Here, as the school defendants have observed, there is no statutory requirement that a sheriff provide a school resource officer. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Norman v. Nash Johnson & Sons' Farms, Inc.
green
1 sentence2000However, while our Court held in Norman v. Nash Johnson & Sons' Farms, supra, that the fiduciary duty owed to a minority shareholder by a majority shareholder may satisfy the special duty requirement of Barger, plaintiff was a fifty percent owner of A & B and hence was not a minority shareholder. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Davis v. Messer
green
1 sentence2000App. 44, 56 , 457 S.E.2d 902, 910 (holding the following allegations stated a claim for relief under the special duty exception: “the Town .. . promised it would provide fire-fighting assistance and protection; the promised protection never arrived; and plaintiffs relied upon the promise to respond to the fire as their exclusive source of aid, resulting in the complete destruction of their home”), disc. rev. denied, 341 N.C. 647 , 462 S.E.2d 508 (1995). | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Corn v. Nesbitt
green
1 sentence2000App. 44, 56 , 457 S.E.2d 902, 910 (holding the following allegations stated a claim for relief under the special duty exception: “the Town .. . promised it would provide fire-fighting assistance and protection; the promised protection never arrived; and plaintiffs relied upon the promise to respond to the fire as their exclusive source of aid, resulting in the complete destruction of their home”), disc. rev. denied, 341 N.C. 647 , 462 S.E.2d 508 (1995). | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Coleman v. Cooper
green
1 sentence1994Plaintiff cites Coleman v. Cooper, 89 N.C. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
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.