resolution claim (North Carolina) · Go Syfert
← North Carolina issues

resolution claim in North Carolina

25 North Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1989–2026 8 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.

Followed or applied (5)

CaseFollowedCited
Brewer v. Brewergreen
ncctapp · 2000 · cited in 8 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2008–2023
2 sentences

2023A “[t]emporary custody order[] resolve[s] the issue of a party’s right to custody pending the resolution of a claim for permanent custody.” Brewer, 139 N.C.

2016"Temporary custody orders resolve the issue of a party's right to custody pending the resolution of a claim for permanent custody." Brewer v. Brewer, 139 N.C.App. 222 , 228, 533 S.E.2d 541 , 546 (2000).

68
Regan v. Smithgreen
ncctapp · 1998 · cited in 6 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2000–2024
2 sentences

2024A permanent custody order “establishes a party’s present right to custody of a child and that party’s right to retain custody indefinitely[,]” whereas, a temporary custody order “establish[es] a party’s right to custody of a child pending the resolution of a claim for permanent custody.” Regan v. Smith, 131 N.C.

2020A “temporary custody order[] establish[es] a party’s right to custody of a child pending the resolution of a claim for permanent custody—that is, pending the issuance of a permanent custody order.” Regan v. Smith, 131 N.C.

46
State v. Hymangreen
nc · 2018 · cited in 5 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2021–2025
2 sentences

2025GUPTON Opinion of the Court direct appeal record must have contained sufficient information to permit the reviewing court to make all the factual and legal determinations necessary to allow a proper resolution of the claim in question.” Id. at 383, 817 S.E.2d at 170 .

2025Phrased another way, defendant contends that, without the [prosecutor’s] affidavit, the record did not “contain[ ] sufficient information to permit the reviewing court to make all the factual and legal determinations necessary to allow a proper resolution of the claim in question.” Id. at 275, 913 S.E.2d at 150 (quoting Hyman, 371 N.C. at 383 , 817 S.E.2d at 170 ).

15
Tridyn Industries, Inc. v. American Mutual Insurancegreen
nc · 1979 · cited in 1 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2002–2002
2 sentences

2002It is the resolution of a claim, rather than the phrase “final judgment” that determines whether an order is ‘final.’ Industries, Inc. v. Insurance Co., 296 N.C. 486, 491 , 251 S.E.2d 443, 447 (1979) (“That the trial court declared it to be a final, declaratory judgment does not make it so.”).

2002It is the resolution of a claim, rather than the phrase “final judgment” that determines whether an order is ‘final.’ Industries, Inc. v. Insurance Co., 296 N.C. 486, 491 , 251 S.E.2d 443, 447 (1979) (“That the trial court declared it to be a final, declaratory judgment does not make it so.”).

11
Dunlap v. Dunlapgreen
ncctapp · 1986 · cited in 1 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 1998–1998
1 sentence

1998See Dunlap v. Dunlap, 81 N.C.

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in North Carolina. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (6)

CaseCitedYears
State v. Hill green
nc · 1997
2 sentences

2026The trial court also made affirmative Findings about Defendant’s conduct; for example, it stated Defendant had answered questions “clearly” and “rationally.” We give “great deference” to the trial court’s resolution of defense counsel’s concerns, “because [it] is in the best position to determine whether the degree of influence on the jury was irreparable.” Hill, 347 N.C. at 297 , 493 S.E.2d at 276 .

2026The trial court also made affirmative Findings about Defendant’s conduct; for example, it stated Defendant had answered questions “clearly” and “rationally.” We give “great deference” to the trial court’s resolution of defense counsel’s concerns, “because [it] is in the best position to determine whether the degree of influence on the jury was irreparable.” Hill, 347 N.C. at 297 , 493 S.E.2d at 276 .

12026–2026
Strickland v. Washington green
scotus · 1984
2 sentences

2018A careful review of the record demonstrates that defendant was not in a position to adequately raise the ineffective assistance of counsel claim asserted in his motion for appropriate relief on direct appeal. 6 "A **384 convicted defendant's claim that counsel's assistance was so defective as to require reversal of a conviction ... has two components." Strickland , 466 U.S. at 687 , 104 S.Ct. at 2064 , 80 L.Ed.2d at 693 .

2018A careful review of the record demonstrates that defendant was not in a position to adequately raise the ineffective assistance of counsel claim asserted in his motion for appropriate relief on direct appeal. 6 "A **384 convicted defendant's claim that counsel's assistance was so defective as to require reversal of a conviction ... has two components." Strickland , 466 U.S. at 687 , 104 S.Ct. at 2064 , 80 L.Ed.2d at 693 .

12018–2018
Senner v. Senner green
ncctapp · 2003
2 sentences

2016"Normally, a temporary child custody order is interlocutory and does not affect any substantial right which cannot be protected by timely appeal from the trial court's ultimate disposition on the merits." Brewer. 139 N.C.App. at 227 , 533 S.E.2d at 546 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). "[A]n order is temporary if either (1) it is entered without prejudice to either party, (2) it states a clear and specific reconvening time in the order and the time interval between the two hearings was reasonably brief; or (3) the order does not determine all the issues." Senner v. Senner, 161 N

2016"Normally, a temporary child custody order is interlocutory and does not affect any substantial right which cannot be protected by timely appeal from the trial court's ultimate disposition on the merits." Brewer. 139 N.C.App. at 227 , 533 S.E.2d at 546 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). "[A]n order is temporary if either (1) it is entered without prejudice to either party, (2) it states a clear and specific reconvening time in the order and the time interval between the two hearings was reasonably brief; or (3) the order does not determine all the issues." Senner v. Senner, 161 N

12016–2016
Miller v. Miller green
ncctapp · 2009
1 sentence

2013Miller v. Miller, 201 N.C.

12013–2013
Parris v. Garner Commercial Disposal, Inc. neutral
nc · 1979
2 sentences

1989App. 282 , 253 S.E. 2d 29 , disc. review denied, 297 N.C. 455 , 256 S.E. 2d 808 (1979), but it is essential that there be some act by which the defendant purposefully avails himself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum state, thus invoking the benefits and protections of the forum state’s laws.

1989App. 282 , 253 S.E. 2d 29 , disc. review denied, 297 N.C. 455 , 256 S.E. 2d 808 (1979), but it is essential that there be some act by which the defendant purposefully avails himself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum state, thus invoking the benefits and protections of the forum state’s laws.

11989–1989
Parris v. Garner Commercial Disposal, Inc. green
ncctapp · 1979
2 sentences

1989The resolution of the inquiry necessarily turns on the facts of each case, Parris v. Garner Commercial Disposal, Inc., 40 N.C.

1989App. 282 , 253 S.E. 2d 29 , disc. review denied, 297 N.C. 455 , 256 S.E. 2d 808 (1979), but it is essential that there be some act by which the defendant purposefully avails himself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum state, thus invoking the benefits and protections of the forum state’s laws.

11989–1989

Statutes the citing opinions construe

NC § N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1419 (6) NC § N.C. Gen. Stat. § 50-13.1 (6) NC § N.C. Gen. Stat. § 50-13.5 (6) NC § N.C. Gen. Stat. § 50-13.7 (6) NC § N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1415 (5) NC § N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7A-32 (5) NC § N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1 (4) NC § N.C. Gen. Stat. § 50-13.2 (4) NC § N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7A-27 (4) NC § N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1420 (3)

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.

Where else courts name it

TX 62 (1966–2026) CT 51 (1989–2025) CA 44 (1929–2026) IL 34 (1985–2025) PA 33 (1902–2026) NC 25 (1989–2026) FL 21 (1974–2022) OH 18 (1986–2022) MA 12 (1993–2025) MD 12 (1976–2017) MS 11 (1928–2022) WA 11 (2003–2014) MO 11 (1959–2024) OK 11 (1982–2017) NY 11 (1964–2026) NJ 9 (1945–2026) GA 8 (1994–2023) OR 7 (1987–2017) WI 7 (1998–2024) KY 6 (2010–2025) DE 6 (1976–2026) WV 6 (1982–2009) IN 6 (2006–2026) WY 6 (2004–2011) TN 5 (2001–2007) AL 5 (1992–2026) CO 5 (1985–2011) MI 5 (1983–2025) KS 5 (1995–2024) VT 4 (2007–2015) AZ 4 (1975–2024) VA 4 (1982–1999) LA 4 (1989–2021) HI 3 (1994–2016) DC 3 (1978–2013) AK 3 (2008–2024) IA 3 (1986–2016) MT 3 (1998–2017) NE 2 (2001–2006) NV 2 (1995–2000) MN 2 (1990–2016) ID 2 (1987–2014)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check