24 North Carolina opinions name it 3 courts 2006–2026 9 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 |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Wheelergreen2 sentences2020TAYLOR Opinion of the Court the statements are made, as well as the recipients’ responses are all relevant.’” United States v. Wheeler, 776 F.3d 736, 743 (10th Cir. 2015) (citations omitted). 2020TAYLOR Opinion of the Court the statements are made, as well as the recipients’ responses are all relevant.’” United States v. Wheeler, 776 F.3d 736, 743 (10th Cir. 2015) (citations omitted). | 3 | 3 |
State v. Younggreen2 sentences2021Ed. 2d 103, 118 (1975), based upon “substantial evidence before the court indicating that the accused may be mentally incompetent.” State v. Young, 291 N.C. 562, 568 , 231 S.E.2d 577, 581 (1977). ¶ 31 There is no bright-line rule establishing when a sua sponte competency hearing is required, as “whether substantial evidence of a defendant’s lack of capacity exists . . . requires a fact-intensive inquiry that will hinge on the unique State has not sought to dismiss Defendant’s appeal, all three first-degree murder charges were tried jointly, and Defendant’s petition further requests that this C 2021Ed. 2d 103, 118 (1975), based upon “substantial evidence before the court indicating that the accused may be mentally incompetent.” State v. Young, 291 N.C. 562, 568 , 231 S.E.2d 577, 581 (1977). ¶ 31 There is no bright-line rule establishing when a sua sponte competency hearing is required, as “whether substantial evidence of a defendant’s lack of capacity exists . . . requires a fact-intensive inquiry that will hinge on the unique State has not sought to dismiss Defendant’s appeal, all three first-degree murder charges were tried jointly, and Defendant’s petition further requests that this C | 2 | 2 |
Sides v. Cabarrus Memorial Hospital, Inc.green2 sentences2018We again emphasize that "the proper designation of a particular action of a county or municipality is a fact intensive inquiry ... and may differ from case to case." Id. at 203 , 732 S.E.2d at 143 ; see also id. at 203 , 732 S.E.2d at 143 ("[I]t does not follow that a particular activity will be denoted a governmental function even though previous cases have held the identical activity to be of such a public necessity that the expenditure of funds in connection with it was for a public purpose." (quoting *367 Sides v. Cabarrus Mem'l Hosp., Inc. , 287 N.C. 14 , 22, 213 S.E.2d 297 , 302 (1975) ( 2018We again emphasize that "the proper designation of a particular action of a county or municipality is a fact intensive inquiry ... and may differ from case to case." Id. at 203 , 732 S.E.2d at 143 ; see also id. at 203 , 732 S.E.2d at 143 ("[I]t does not follow that a particular activity will be denoted a governmental function even though previous cases have held the identical activity to be of such a public necessity that the expenditure of funds in connection with it was for a public purpose." (quoting *367 Sides v. Cabarrus Mem'l Hosp., Inc. , 287 N.C. 14 , 22, 213 S.E.2d 297 , 302 (1975) ( | 2 | 2 |
Estate of Williams ex rel. Overton v. Pasquotank County Parks & Recreation Departmentgreen2 sentences2025At bottom, this analysis “is a fact intensive inquiry, turning on the facts alleged in the complaint, and may differ from case to case.” Williams, 366 N.C. at 203 , 732 S.E.2d at 143 . 2025At bottom, this analysis “is a fact intensive inquiry, turning on the facts alleged in the complaint, and may differ from case to case.” Williams, 366 N.C. at 203 , 732 S.E.2d at 143 . | 1 | 3 |
Avidair Helicopter Supply, Inc. v. Rolls-Royce Corp.green1 sentence2026See, e.g., Syntel Sterling Best Shores Mauritius Ltd. v. The TriZetto Grp., Inc., 68 F.4th 792, 801 (2d Cir. 2023) (“The existence of a trade secret . . . is ‘a fact-specific question to be decided on a case- by-case basis.’ ” (quoting Oakwood Lab’ys LLC v. Thanoo, 999 F.3d 892, 906 (3d Cir. 2021))); Bimbo Bakeries USA, Inc. v. Sycamore, 39 F.4th 1250 , 1261 (10th Cir. 2022) (“Whether a compilation constitutes a trade secret is a fact-intensive inquiry.”); Decision Insights, Inc. v. Sentia Grp., Inc., 311 F. App’x 586, 592 (4th Cir. 2009) (unpublished) (“Whether or not a trade secret exists is | 1 | 1 |
Decision Insights, Inc. v. Sentia Group, Inc.green1 sentence2026See, e.g., Syntel Sterling Best Shores Mauritius Ltd. v. The TriZetto Grp., Inc., 68 F.4th 792, 801 (2d Cir. 2023) (“The existence of a trade secret . . . is ‘a fact-specific question to be decided on a case- by-case basis.’ ” (quoting Oakwood Lab’ys LLC v. Thanoo, 999 F.3d 892, 906 (3d Cir. 2021))); Bimbo Bakeries USA, Inc. v. Sycamore, 39 F.4th 1250 , 1261 (10th Cir. 2022) (“Whether a compilation constitutes a trade secret is a fact-intensive inquiry.”); Decision Insights, Inc. v. Sentia Grp., Inc., 311 F. App’x 586, 592 (4th Cir. 2009) (unpublished) (“Whether or not a trade secret exists is | 1 | 1 |
Syntel Sterling Best Shores Mauritius, Ltd. v. the TriZetto Grp.green1 sentence2026See, e.g., Syntel Sterling Best Shores Mauritius Ltd. v. The TriZetto Grp., Inc., 68 F.4th 792, 801 (2d Cir. 2023) (“The existence of a trade secret . . . is ‘a fact-specific question to be decided on a case- by-case basis.’ ” (quoting Oakwood Lab’ys LLC v. Thanoo, 999 F.3d 892, 906 (3d Cir. 2021))); Bimbo Bakeries USA, Inc. v. Sycamore, 39 F.4th 1250 , 1261 (10th Cir. 2022) (“Whether a compilation constitutes a trade secret is a fact-intensive inquiry.”); Decision Insights, Inc. v. Sentia Grp., Inc., 311 F. App’x 586, 592 (4th Cir. 2009) (unpublished) (“Whether or not a trade secret exists is | 1 | 1 |
Oakwood Laboratories LLC v. Bagavathikanun Thanoogreen1 sentence2026See, e.g., Syntel Sterling Best Shores Mauritius Ltd. v. The TriZetto Grp., Inc., 68 F.4th 792, 801 (2d Cir. 2023) (“The existence of a trade secret . . . is ‘a fact-specific question to be decided on a case- by-case basis.’ ” (quoting Oakwood Lab’ys LLC v. Thanoo, 999 F.3d 892, 906 (3d Cir. 2021))); Bimbo Bakeries USA, Inc. v. Sycamore, 39 F.4th 1250 , 1261 (10th Cir. 2022) (“Whether a compilation constitutes a trade secret is a fact-intensive inquiry.”); Decision Insights, Inc. v. Sentia Grp., Inc., 311 F. App’x 586, 592 (4th Cir. 2009) (unpublished) (“Whether or not a trade secret exists is | 1 | 1 |
Hoechst Diafoil Company v. Nan Ya Plastics Corporationgreen1 sentence2026See, e.g., Syntel Sterling Best Shores Mauritius Ltd. v. The TriZetto Grp., Inc., 68 F.4th 792, 801 (2d Cir. 2023) (“The existence of a trade secret . . . is ‘a fact-specific question to be decided on a case- by-case basis.’ ” (quoting Oakwood Lab’ys LLC v. Thanoo, 999 F.3d 892, 906 (3d Cir. 2021))); Bimbo Bakeries USA, Inc. v. Sycamore, 39 F.4th 1250 , 1261 (10th Cir. 2022) (“Whether a compilation constitutes a trade secret is a fact-intensive inquiry.”); Decision Insights, Inc. v. Sentia Grp., Inc., 311 F. App’x 586, 592 (4th Cir. 2009) (unpublished) (“Whether or not a trade secret exists is | 1 | 1 |
cluster 783453green1 sentence2026See, e.g., Syntel Sterling Best Shores Mauritius Ltd. v. The TriZetto Grp., Inc., 68 F.4th 792, 801 (2d Cir. 2023) (“The existence of a trade secret . . . is ‘a fact-specific question to be decided on a case- by-case basis.’ ” (quoting Oakwood Lab’ys LLC v. Thanoo, 999 F.3d 892, 906 (3d Cir. 2021))); Bimbo Bakeries USA, Inc. v. Sycamore, 39 F.4th 1250 , 1261 (10th Cir. 2022) (“Whether a compilation constitutes a trade secret is a fact-intensive inquiry.”); Decision Insights, Inc. v. Sentia Grp., Inc., 311 F. App’x 586, 592 (4th Cir. 2009) (unpublished) (“Whether or not a trade secret exists is | 1 | 1 |
Drope v. Missourigreen2 sentences2025“Substantial evidence which establishes a bona fide doubt as to a defendant’s competency may be established by considering ‘a defendant’s irrational behavior, his demeanor at trial, and any prior medical opinion on competence to stand trial.’” Hollars, 376 N.C. at 442, 852 S.E.2d at 142 (quoting Drope v. Missouri, 420 U.S. 162, 180 , 95 S. Ct. 896, 908 (1975)).2 “Regardless of the circumstances that constitute substantial evidence 2 “[T]he issue of whether substantial evidence of a defendant’s lack of capacity exists so as to require a sua sponte competency hearing requires a fact-intensive in 2025“Substantial evidence which establishes a bona fide doubt as to a defendant’s competency may be established by considering ‘a defendant’s irrational behavior, his demeanor at trial, and any prior medical opinion on competence to stand trial.’” Hollars, 376 N.C. at 442, 852 S.E.2d at 142 (quoting Drope v. Missouri, 420 U.S. 162, 180 , 95 S. Ct. 896, 908 (1975)).2 “Regardless of the circumstances that constitute substantial evidence 2 “[T]he issue of whether substantial evidence of a defendant’s lack of capacity exists so as to require a sua sponte competency hearing requires a fact-intensive in | 1 | 1 |
State v. Aldridgegreen2 sentences2023State v. Aldridge, 254 N.C. 297, 300 , 118 S.E.2d 766, 768 (1961). 2023State v. Aldridge, 254 N.C. 297, 300 , 118 S.E.2d 766, 768 (1961). | 1 | 1 |
Frank H. Conner Co. v. Spanish Inns Charlotte, Ltd.green2 sentences2017Conner Co. v. Spanish Inns Charlotte, Ltd., 294 N.C. 661, 678 , 242 S.E.2d 785, 795 (1978). 2017Conner Co. v. Spanish Inns Charlotte, Ltd., 294 N.C. 661, 678 , 242 S.E.2d 785, 795 (1978). | 1 | 1 |
Walker v. . McLauringreen2 sentences2016See McLaurin, 227 N.C. at 56 , 40 S.E.2d at 457 . 2016See McLaurin, 227 N.C. at 56 , 40 S.E.2d at 457 . | 1 | 1 |
Todd v. Exxon Corporationgreen1 sentence2016See Todd v. Exxon Corp., 275 F.3d 191 , 199–200 (2d Cir. 2001). | 1 | 1 |
Farnsworth v. Jonesgreen1 sentence2014App. 182, 187 , 441 S.E.2d 597, 601 (1994) (quoting Hall, 280 N.C. at 608 , 187 S.E.2d at 57 ). {22} Determining domicile is a fact-intensive inquiry that depends on the particular facts of the case. | 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 the Estate of Lunsford
green
2 sentences2025Additionally, it is a well settled principle of law “‘that where the language of a statute is clear and unambiguous, there is no room for judicial construction and [we] must construe the statute using its plain meaning.’” Kinston Charter Acad., 379 N.C. at 572, 866 S.E.2d at 656 (quoting In re Est. of Lunsford, 359 N.C. 382 , 391–92, 610 S.E.2d 366 (2005)). 2025Additionally, it is a well settled principle of law “‘that where the language of a statute is clear and unambiguous, there is no room for judicial construction and [we] must construe the statute using its plain meaning.’” Kinston Charter Acad., 379 N.C. at 572, 866 S.E.2d at 656 (quoting In re Est. of Lunsford, 359 N.C. 382 , 391–92, 610 S.E.2d 366 (2005)). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Fair
green
1 sentence2024Because the “reasonableness” of counsel’s performance at trial is a fact-intensive inquiry, “the proper course is generally to dismiss the claim without prejudice to allow for a hearing and further factfinding.” Oglesby, 382 N.C. at 243 (citing Fair, 354 N.C. at 166 ). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Peek v. Wachovia Bank & Trust Company
green
1 sentence2024The Court of Appeals erred, however, when it cited Peek as “[t]he earliest case in North Carolina to discuss the doctrine of equitable subrogation.” Id. at 670 (citing Peek, 242 N.C. at 15 ). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Poor Richard's, Inc. v. Stone
green
1 sentence2024“The means used must be measured by balancing the public good likely to result from their utilization against the burdens resulting to the businesses being regulated.” Id. at 66 . | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Minyard
green
1 sentence2020Our holding should not be interpreted as a bright-line rule that a defendant’s suicide attempt automatically triggers the need for a competency 3 In its analysis, the Court of Appeals majority relied largely on that court’s prior decision in State v. Minyard, 231 N.C. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Porter
green
2 sentences2017"Some of the factors considered are whether the trial court conveyed an impression to the jurors that it was irritated with them for not reaching a verdict and whether the trial court intimated to the jurors that it would hold them until they reached a verdict." State v. Porter , 340 N.C. 320 , 335, 457 S.E.2d 716 , 723 (1995) (citation omitted). 2017"Some of the factors considered are whether the trial court conveyed an impression to the jurors that it was irritated with them for not reaching a verdict and whether the trial court intimated to the jurors that it would hold them until they reached a verdict." State v. Porter , 340 N.C. 320 , 335, 457 S.E.2d 716 , 723 (1995) (citation omitted). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Peek
green
2 sentences2017The issue of jury coercion involves a fact-intensive inquiry. "[I]n deciding whether a [trial] court's instructions force a verdict or merely serve as a catalyst for further deliberations, an appellate court must consider the circumstances under which the instructions were made and the probable impact of the instructions on the jury." State v. Peek , 313 N.C. 266 , 271, 328 S.E.2d 249 , 253 (1985). 2017The issue of jury coercion involves a fact-intensive inquiry. "[I]n deciding whether a [trial] court's instructions force a verdict or merely serve as a catalyst for further deliberations, an appellate court must consider the circumstances under which the instructions were made and the probable impact of the instructions on the jury." State v. Peek , 313 N.C. 266 , 271, 328 S.E.2d 249 , 253 (1985). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Lumber Co. v. . Elias
green
1 sentence2016Id. {96} Determining whether an agreement has been ratified requires a fact- intensive inquiry that is generally more appropriate for the trier of fact than for summary judgment. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
State v. Gray
green
1 sentence2015However, in light of the case-specific procedural analysis required by this Court in Gray, supra, and as evidenced by the fact-intensive analysis in this case, we believe that determining whether a waiver is effective cannot be based solely on bright- line rules of law but, instead, must be based on the facts and circumstances of each case. -16- the defendant is fully advised of the facts underlying the potential conflict and is given the opportunity to express his or her views”). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Katherine Inez Hall v. Wake County Board of Elections
green
2 sentences2014App. 182, 187 , 441 S.E.2d 597, 601 (1994) (quoting Hall, 280 N.C. at 608 , 187 S.E.2d at 57 ). {22} Determining domicile is a fact-intensive inquiry that depends on the particular facts of the case. 2014App. 182, 187 , 441 S.E.2d 597, 601 (1994) (quoting Hall, 280 N.C. at 608 , 187 S.E.2d at 57 ). {22} Determining domicile is a fact-intensive inquiry that depends on the particular facts of the case. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Glenn Ex Rel. Glenn v. City of Raleigh
green
2 sentences2012In Glenn v. City of Raleigh, 246 N.C. 469 , 98 S.E.2d 913 (1957), our Supreme Court considered a factual scenario similar to the present case. 2012In Glenn v. City of Raleigh, 246 N.C. 469 , 98 S.E.2d 913 (1957), our Supreme Court considered a factual scenario similar to the present case. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Zinn v. Walker
green
1 sentence2006Id. at 337, 361 S.E.2d at 320-21 . {67} For reasons I have discussed earlier, the Court declines to discern the intent of the parties as to whether a novation occurred here because such a fact-intensive inquiry is inappropriate on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. {68} If pressed, however, I would find that the Stock Purchase Agreement is at least ambiguous as to whether it was intended to replace the Amended Employment Agreement, and I 14 certainly would not find that the facts before me clearly and convincingly favor the Defendants’ position. {69} In sum, the Court DENIES the Defendants’ Mo | 1 | 2006–2006 |
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.