27 North Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1981–2022 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 |
|---|---|---|
State Ex Rel. Utilities Commission v. Bird Oil Co.green2 sentences2012Stat. § 150B-51(c); Utilities Comm. v. Bird Oil Co., 302 N.C. 14, 21 , 273 S.E.2d 232, 236 (1981) (“The nature of the contended error dictates the applicable scope of review.”). “[E]rrors of law are reviewed de novo, while the whole record test is applied to allegations that the administrative agency decision was not supported by the evidence, or was arbitrary and capricious.” Sack v. N.C. 2012Stat. § 150B-51(c); Utilities Comm. v. Bird Oil Co., 302 N.C. 14, 21 , 273 S.E.2d 232, 236 (1981) (“The nature of the contended error dictates the applicable scope of review.”). “[E]rrors of law are reviewed de novo, while the whole record test is applied to allegations that the administrative agency decision was not supported by the evidence, or was arbitrary and capricious.” Sack v. N.C. | 12 | 13 |
Amanini v. N.C. Department of Human Resourcesgreen2 sentences2022App. 615, 618 , 317 S.E.2d 912, 915 (1984) (internal marks and citation omitted). “[T]he manner of our review is [not] governed merely by the label an appellant places upon an assignment of error; rather, we first determine the actual nature of the contended error, then proceed with an application of the proper scope of review.” Amanini, 114 N.C. 2022App. 615, 618 , 317 S.E.2d 912, 915 (1984) (internal marks and citation omitted). “[T]he manner of our review is [not] governed merely by the label an appellant places upon an assignment of error; rather, we first determine the actual nature of the contended error, then proceed with an application of the proper scope of review.” Amanini, 114 N.C. | 3 | 11 |
Willis v. City of Southport Board of Adjustmentgreen2 sentences2002In re Appeal of Willis, 129 N.C.App. 499, 501 , 500 S.E.2d 723, 725-26 (1998) (citing Utilities Comm. v. Oil Co., 302 N.C. 14, 21 , 273 S.E.2d 232, 236 (1981); Amanini, 114 N.C.App. at 675 , 443 S.E.2d at 118 ) (internal quotations omitted). *579 Accordingly, the first question we reach is "whether the trial court exercised the appropriate scope of review." See ACT-UP, 345 N.C. at 706 , 483 S.E.2d at 392 . 2002In re Appeal of Willis, 129 N.C. | 2 | 3 |
Bennett v. Hertford County Board of Educationgreen2 sentences2022App. 615, 618 , 317 S.E.2d 912, 915 (1984) (internal marks and citation omitted). “[T]he manner of our review is [not] governed merely by the label an appellant places upon an assignment of error; rather, we first determine the actual nature of the contended error, then proceed with an application of the proper scope of review.” Amanini, 114 N.C. 2022App. 615, 618 , 317 S.E.2d 912, 915 (1984) (internal marks and citation omitted). “[T]he manner of our review is [not] governed merely by the label an appellant places upon an assignment of error; rather, we first determine the actual nature of the contended error, then proceed with an application of the proper scope of review.” Amanini, 114 N.C. | 2 | 2 |
Souther v. New River Area Mental Health Development Disabilities & Substance Abuse Programgreen1 sentence2003App. at 3-4 , 541 S.E.2d at 752 (citation omitted). “[I]t appears uncontroverted that the foregoing rule should not be interpreted to mean the manner of our review is governed merely by the label an appellant places upon an assignment of error; rather, we first determine the actual nature of the contended error, then proceed with an application of the proper scope of review.” Amanini v. N.C. | 1 | 1 |
Dillingham v. North Carolina Department of Human Resourcesgreen2 sentences2002See id. (after determining the actual nature of the contended error the appellate court then proceeds utilizing the proper standard of review). 2002See id. (after determining the actual nature of the contended error the appellate court then proceeds utilizing the proper standard of review). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Rector v. SHERIFFS'EDUC. & TRAINING COM'N
green
2 sentences2002Sheriffs' Educ. and Training Standards Comm., 103 N.C.App. 527 , 532, 406 S.E.2d 613 , 616 (1991)). [W]hile [t]he nature of the contended error dictates the applicable scope of review, this rule should not be interpreted to mean the manner of ... review is governed merely by the label an appellant places upon an assignment of error; rather, [the court] first determine[s] the actual nature of the contended error, then proceed[s] with an application of the proper scope of review. 2002App. 527 , 532, 406 S.E.2d 613 , 616 (1991)). [W]hile [t]he nature of the contended error dictates the applicable scope of review, this rule should not be interpreted to mean the manner of... review is governed merely by the label an appellant places upon an assignment of error; rather, [the court] first determine [s] the actual nature of the contended error, then proceed^] with an application of the proper scope of review. | 2 | 2002–2002 |
Tucker v. Mecklenburg Cty. Zoning Bd. of Adjust.
green
2 sentences2002Id. (after determining the actual nature of the contended error the appellate court then proceeds with the proper standard of review). 2002Id. (after determining the actual nature of the contended error the appellate court then proceeds with the proper standard of review). | 2 | 2002–2002 |
Sack v. North Carolina State University
green
1 sentence2012State Univ., 155 N.C. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
ACT-UP Triangle v. Commission for Health Services
green
2 sentences2002In re Appeal of Willis, 129 N.C.App. 499, 501 , 500 S.E.2d 723, 725-26 (1998) (citing Utilities Comm. v. Oil Co., 302 N.C. 14, 21 , 273 S.E.2d 232, 236 (1981); Amanini, 114 N.C.App. at 675 , 443 S.E.2d at 118 ) (internal quotations omitted). *579 Accordingly, the first question we reach is "whether the trial court exercised the appropriate scope of review." See ACT-UP, 345 N.C. at 706 , 483 S.E.2d at 392 . 2002In re Appeal of Willis, 129 N.C.App. 499, 501 , 500 S.E.2d 723, 725-26 (1998) (citing Utilities Comm. v. Oil Co., 302 N.C. 14, 21 , 273 S.E.2d 232, 236 (1981); Amanini, 114 N.C.App. at 675 , 443 S.E.2d at 118 ) (internal quotations omitted). *579 Accordingly, the first question we reach is "whether the trial court exercised the appropriate scope of review." See ACT-UP, 345 N.C. at 706 , 483 S.E.2d at 392 . | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Brooks v. McWhirter Grading Co., Inc.
green
2 sentences1989The proper scope of review is further determined by the “nature of the contended error.” McWhirter Grading Co., 303 N.C. at 580 , 281 S.E. 2d at 29 . 1989The proper scope of review is further determined by the “nature of the contended error.” McWhirter Grading Co., 303 N.C. at 580 , 281 S.E. 2d at 29 . | 1 | 1989–1989 |
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.