interpretation rule in North Carolina

21 North Carolina opinions name it 3 courts 1912–2026 1 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 (11)

Case	Followed	Cited
State v. Lanegreen nc · 2018 · cited in 2 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2020–2020 2 sentences 2020See Lane, 370 N.C. at 519 , 809 S.E.2d at 575 ; State v. Tirado, 358 N.C. 551 , 599 S.E.2d 515 (2004); State v. Kilpatrick, 343 N.C. 466 , 471 S.E.2d 624 (1996). 2020See Lane, 370 N.C. at 519 , 809 S.E.2d at 575 ; State v. Tirado, 358 N.C. 551 , 599 S.E.2d 515 (2004); State v. Kilpatrick, 343 N.C. 466 , 471 S.E.2d 624 (1996).	2	2
State v. Clarkgreen nc · 1989 · cited in 2 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2020–2020 2 sentences 2020As this Court has made clear, “[t]he best evidence rule applies only when the contents of a writing are in question.” State v. Clark, 324 N.C. 146, 156 , 377 S.E.2d 54, 60 (1989) (emphasis added). 2020As this Court has made clear, “[t]he best evidence rule applies only when the contents of a writing are in question.” State v. Clark, 324 N.C. 146, 156 , 377 S.E.2d 54, 60 (1989) (emphasis added).	2	2
Variety Wholesalers, Inc. v. Salem Logistics Traffic Services, LLCgreen nc · 2012 · cited in 1 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2012–2012 1 sentence 2012See Variety Wholesalers, Inc., ___ N.C. at ___, 723 S.E.2d at 750–51. {82} In Variety Wholesalers, Inc., the Court was asked to determine whether summary judgment was appropriate to resolve the question of whether a contract entered into by the plaintiff and the defendant sufficiently retained for plaintiff an ownership interest in funds sent to the defendant for payment to a third party.	1	1
State v. Wallacegreen ncctapp · 1991 · cited in 1 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 1998–1998 2 sentences 1998See, e.g., Farmers Federation, Inc. v. Morris, 223 N.C. 467, 468 , 27 S.E.2d 80, 81 (1943) (prerule case stating that evidence need not bear directly on the question in issue to be admissible; it is competent if it relates to one of the circumstances surrounding the parties and necessary to be known to properly understand the issues or to weigh the reasonableness of their contentions); State v. Wallace, 104 N.C.App. 498, 502 , 410 S.E.2d 226, 228 (1991) (this standard gives the trial judge broad discretion to admit evidence); State v. Hall, 98 N.C.App. 1, 8 , 390 S.E.2d 169, 173 (1990) (eviden 1998See, e.g., Farmers Federation, Inc. v. Morris, 223 N.C. 467, 468 , 27 S.E.2d 80, 81 (1943) (prerule case stating that evidence need not bear directly on the question in issue to be admissible; it is competent if it relates to one of the circumstances surrounding the parties and necessary to be known to properly understand the issues or to weigh the reasonableness of their contentions); State v. Wallace, 104 N.C.App. 498, 502 , 410 S.E.2d 226, 228 (1991) (this standard gives the trial judge broad discretion to admit evidence); State v. Hall, 98 N.C.App. 1, 8 , 390 S.E.2d 169, 173 (1990) (eviden	1	1
State v. Hallgreen ncctapp · 1990 · cited in 1 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 1998–1998 2 sentences 1998See, e.g., Farmers Federation, Inc. v. Morris, 223 N.C. 467, 468 , 27 S.E.2d 80, 81 (1943) (prerule case stating that evidence need not bear directly on the question in issue to be admissible; it is competent if it relates to one of the circumstances surrounding the parties and necessary to be known to properly understand the issues or to weigh the reasonableness of their contentions); State v. Wallace, 104 N.C.App. 498, 502 , 410 S.E.2d 226, 228 (1991) (this standard gives the trial judge broad discretion to admit evidence); State v. Hall, 98 N.C.App. 1, 8 , 390 S.E.2d 169, 173 (1990) (eviden 1998See, e.g., Farmers Federation, Inc. v. Morris, 223 N.C. 467, 468 , 27 S.E.2d 80, 81 (1943) (prerule case stating that evidence need not bear directly on the question in issue to be admissible; it is competent if it relates to one of the circumstances surrounding the parties and necessary to be known to properly understand the issues or to weigh the reasonableness of their contentions); State v. Wallace, 104 N.C.App. 498, 502 , 410 S.E.2d 226, 228 (1991) (this standard gives the trial judge broad discretion to admit evidence); State v. Hall, 98 N.C.App. 1, 8 , 390 S.E.2d 169, 173 (1990) (eviden	1	1
Farmers Federation, Inc. v. . Morrisgreen nc · 1943 · cited in 1 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 1998–1998 2 sentences 1998See, e.g., Farmers Federation, Inc. v. Morris, 223 N.C. 467, 468 , 27 S.E.2d 80, 81 (1943) (pre-rule case stating that evidence need not bear directly on the question in issue to be admissible; it is competent if it relates to one of the circumstances sur rounding the parties and necessary to be known to properly understand the issues or to weigh the reasonableness of their contentions); State v. Wallace, 104 N.C. 1998See, e.g., Farmers Federation, Inc. v. Morris, 223 N.C. 467, 468 , 27 S.E.2d 80, 81 (1943) (pre-rule case stating that evidence need not bear directly on the question in issue to be admissible; it is competent if it relates to one of the circumstances sur rounding the parties and necessary to be known to properly understand the issues or to weigh the reasonableness of their contentions); State v. Wallace, 104 N.C.	1	1
Johnson v. Phoenix Mutual Life Insurancegreen nc · 1980 · cited in 1 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 1988–1988 2 sentences 1988See Johnson v. Insurance Co., 300 N.C. 247 , 266 S.E. 2d 610 (1980) 464 (Court held that similarity between federal and state FTC statutory provisions allowed state court to seek guidance from federal decisions). 1988See Johnson v. Insurance Co., 300 N.C. 247 , 266 S.E. 2d 610 (1980) 464 (Court held that similarity between federal and state FTC statutory provisions allowed state court to seek guidance from federal decisions).	1	1
In Re the Appeal From the Denial of the Application to Dredgegreen nc · 1980 · cited in 1 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 1988–1988 2 sentences 1988See In re Broad and Gales Creek Community Ass’n, 300 N.C. 267, 275 , 266 S.E. 2d 645, 651 (1980). 1988See In re Broad and Gales Creek Community Ass’n, 300 N.C. 267, 275 , 266 S.E. 2d 645, 651 (1980).	1	1
Hewett Ex Rel. Wilson v. Garrettgreen nc · 1968 · cited in 1 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 1985–1985 2 sentences 1985See also e.g., Hewett v. Garrett, 274 N.C. 356 , 163 S.E. 2d 372 (1968). 1985See also e.g., Hewett v. Garrett, 274 N.C. 356 , 163 S.E. 2d 372 (1968).	1	1
United States v. John Louis Iron Shell, Jr.green ca8 · 1980 · cited in 1 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 1985–1985 2 sentences 1985See United States v. Iron Shell, 633 F. 2d 77 (8th Cir. 1980). 1985See United States v. Iron Shell, 633 F.2d 77 (8th Cir.1980).	1	1
United States v. Wilsongreen mdd · 1973 · cited in 1 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 1983–1983 1 sentence 1983See United States v. Wilson, 361 F. Supp. 510, 513 (D.	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

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

Also cited on this issue (29)

Case	Cited	Years
State v. Kilpatrick green nc · 1996 2 sentences 2020See Lane, 370 N.C. at 519 , 809 S.E.2d at 575 ; State v. Tirado, 358 N.C. 551 , 599 S.E.2d 515 (2004); State v. Kilpatrick, 343 N.C. 466 , 471 S.E.2d 624 (1996). 2020See Lane, 370 N.C. at 519 , 809 S.E.2d at 575 ; State v. Tirado, 358 N.C. 551 , 599 S.E.2d 515 (2004); State v. Kilpatrick, 343 N.C. 466 , 471 S.E.2d 624 (1996).	2	2020–2020
State v. Tirado green nc · 2004 2 sentences 2020See Lane, 370 N.C. at 519 , 809 S.E.2d at 575 ; State v. Tirado, 358 N.C. 551 , 599 S.E.2d 515 (2004); State v. Kilpatrick, 343 N.C. 466 , 471 S.E.2d 624 (1996). 2020See Lane, 370 N.C. at 519 , 809 S.E.2d at 575 ; State v. Tirado, 358 N.C. 551 , 599 S.E.2d 515 (2004); State v. Kilpatrick, 343 N.C. 466 , 471 S.E.2d 624 (1996).	2	2020–2020
State v. Tirado green sc · 2004 2 sentences 2020See Lane, 370 N.C. at 519 , 809 S.E.2d at 575 ; State v. Tirado, 358 N.C. 551 , 599 S.E.2d 515 (2004); State v. Kilpatrick, 343 N.C. 466 , 471 S.E.2d 624 (1996). 2020See Lane, 370 N.C. at 519 , 809 S.E.2d at 575 ; State v. Tirado, 358 N.C. 551 , 599 S.E.2d 515 (2004); State v. Kilpatrick, 343 N.C. 466 , 471 S.E.2d 624 (1996).	2	2020–2020
Huntington Ingalls Industries, Inc. v. Ace American Insurance Company green vt · 2022 1 sentence 2026Co., 386 N.C. 733 , 740, 908 S.E.2d 802 , 808-09 (2024) (citation omitted).	1	2026–2026
N. State Deli, LLC v. Cincinnati Ins. Co. green nc · 2024 1 sentence 2026Co., 386 N.C. 733 , 740, 908 S.E.2d 802 , 808-09 (2024) (citation omitted).	1	2026–2026
Robinson v. City of Winston-Salem green ncctapp · 1977 2 sentences 2014I believe that this is an improper interpretation of the rule adopted by this Court in Robinson v. City of Winston-Salem, 34 N.C. 2014I believe that this is an improper interpretation of the rule adopted by this Court in Robinson v. City of Winston-Salem, 34 N.C.	1	2014–2014
Florida v. JL green scotus · 2000 1 sentence 2013Id. at_, 737 S.E.2d at 353 .	1	2013–2013
State v. Heien green nc · 2012 1 sentence 2013Id. at_, 737 S.E.2d at 353 .	1	2013–2013
Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court of Cal., Solano Cty. green scotus · 1987 2 sentences 2009However, the Supreme Court disagreed over the proper interpretation of the principle enunciated in World-Wide Volkswagen in Asahi Metal Ind. Co. v. Superior Court of California, 480 U.S. 102 , 94 L. 2009However, the Supreme Court disagreed over the proper interpretation of the principle enunciated in World-Wide Volkswagen in Asahi Metal Ind. Co. v. Superior Court of California, 480 U.S. 102 , 94 L.	1	2009–2009
United States v. Milton L. McCaskill green ca4 · 1982 2 sentences 1984In both cases the supreme court quoted with approval the following interpretation of the rule: [T]he plain error rule ... is always to be applied cautiously and only in the exceptional case where, after reviewing the entire record, it can be said the claimed error is a "fundamental error, something so basic, so prejudicial, so lacking in its elements that justice cannot have been done," or "where [the error] is grave error which amounts to a denial of a fundamental right of the accused," or the error has "`resulted in a miscarriage of justice or in the denial to appellant of a fair trial'" or 1984In both cases the Supreme Court quoted with approval the following interpretation of the rule: [T]he plain error rule ... is always to be applied cautiously and only in the exceptional case where, after reviewing the entire record, it can be said the claimed error is a “fundamental error, something so basic, so prejudicial, so lacking in its elements that justice cannot have been done,” or “where [the error] is grave error which amounts to a denial of a fundamental right of the accused,” or the error has “ ‘resulted in a miscarriage of justice or in the denial to appellant of a fair trial’ ” o	1	1984–1984
Kleinbart v. Superior Court for the District of Columbia green scotus · 1982 2 sentences 1984In both cases the supreme court quoted with approval the following interpretation of the rule: [T]he plain error rule ... is always to be applied cautiously and only in the exceptional case where, after reviewing the entire record, it can be said the claimed error is a "fundamental error, something so basic, so prejudicial, so lacking in its elements that justice cannot have been done," or "where [the error] is grave error which amounts to a denial of a fundamental right of the accused," or the error has "`resulted in a miscarriage of justice or in the denial to appellant of a fair trial'" or 1984In both cases the Supreme Court quoted with approval the following interpretation of the rule: [T]he plain error rule ... is always to be applied cautiously and only in the exceptional case where, after reviewing the entire record, it can be said the claimed error is a “fundamental error, something so basic, so prejudicial, so lacking in its elements that justice cannot have been done,” or “where [the error] is grave error which amounts to a denial of a fundamental right of the accused,” or the error has “ ‘resulted in a miscarriage of justice or in the denial to appellant of a fair trial’ ” o	1	1984–1984
Dean v. United States green scotus · 1982 1 sentence 1984In both cases the supreme court quoted with approval the following interpretation of the rule: [T]he plain error rule ... is always to be applied cautiously and only in the exceptional case where, after reviewing the entire record, it can be said the claimed error is a "fundamental error, something so basic, so prejudicial, so lacking in its elements that justice cannot have been done," or "where [the error] is grave error which amounts to a denial of a fundamental right of the accused," or the error has "`resulted in a miscarriage of justice or in the denial to appellant of a fair trial'" or	1	1984–1984
McCoy v. Bordenkircher green scotus · 1982 2 sentences 1984In both cases the supreme court quoted with approval the following interpretation of the rule: [T]he plain error rule ... is always to be applied cautiously and only in the exceptional case where, after reviewing the entire record, it can be said the claimed error is a "fundamental error, something so basic, so prejudicial, so lacking in its elements that justice cannot have been done," or "where [the error] is grave error which amounts to a denial of a fundamental right of the accused," or the error has "`resulted in a miscarriage of justice or in the denial to appellant of a fair trial'" or 1984In both cases the Supreme Court quoted with approval the following interpretation of the rule: [T]he plain error rule ... is always to be applied cautiously and only in the exceptional case where, after reviewing the entire record, it can be said the claimed error is a “fundamental error, something so basic, so prejudicial, so lacking in its elements that justice cannot have been done,” or “where [the error] is grave error which amounts to a denial of a fundamental right of the accused,” or the error has “ ‘resulted in a miscarriage of justice or in the denial to appellant of a fair trial’ ” o	1	1984–1984
Spinella v. Pearce green ncctapp · 1971 1 sentence 1977Therefore, no prejudicial error has been made to appear. ...” Spinella v. Pearce, 12 N.C.	1	1977–1977
Suits v. Old Equity Life Insurance Company neutral nc · 1955 2 sentences 1956Wheeler v. Cole, 164 N.C. 378 , 80 S.E. 241 ; Register v. Power Co., 165 N.C. 234 , 81 S.E. 326 ; Carter v. Reaves, 167 N.C. 131 , 83 S.E. 248 ; Rogers v. Jones, 172 N.C. 156 , 90 S.E. 117 ; Myrose v. Swain, 172 N.C. 223 , 90 S.E. 118 ; Byrd v. Southerland, 186 N.C. 384 , 119 S.E. 2 ; Cecil v. Lumber Co., 197 N.C. 81 , 147 S.E. 735 ; In re Will of Beard, 202 N.C. 661 , 163 S.E. 748 ; Greene v. Dishman, 202 N.C. 811 , 164 S.E. 342 ; S. v. Bittings, 206 N.C. 798 , 175 S.E. 299 ; Steelman v. Benfield, 228 N.C. 651 , 46 S.E. 2d 829 ; Suits v. Insurance Co., 241 N.C. 483 , 85 S.E. 2d 602 . 1956Wheeler v. Cole, 164 N.C. 378 , 80 S.E. 241 ; Register v. Power Co., 165 N.C. 234 , 81 S.E. 326 ; Carter v. Reaves, 167 N.C. 131 , 83 S.E. 248 ; Rogers v. Jones, 172 N.C. 156 , 90 S.E. 117 ; Myrose v. Swain, 172 N.C. 223 , 90 S.E. 118 ; Byrd v. Southerland, 186 N.C. 384 , 119 S.E. 2 ; Cecil v. Lumber Co., 197 N.C. 81 , 147 S.E. 735 ; In re Will of Beard, 202 N.C. 661 , 163 S.E. 748 ; Greene v. Dishman, 202 N.C. 811 , 164 S.E. 342 ; S. v. Bittings, 206 N.C. 798 , 175 S.E. 299 ; Steelman v. Benfield, 228 N.C. 651 , 46 S.E. 2d 829 ; Suits v. Insurance Co., 241 N.C. 483 , 85 S.E. 2d 602 .	1	1956–1956
Myrose v. . Swain neutral nc · 1916	1	1956–1956
Greene v. . Dishman neutral nc · 1932 2 sentences 1956Wheeler v. Cole, 164 N.C. 378 , 80 S.E. 241 ; Register v. Power Co., 165 N.C. 234 , 81 S.E. 326 ; Carter v. Reaves, 167 N.C. 131 , 83 S.E. 248 ; Rogers v. Jones, 172 N.C. 156 , 90 S.E. 117 ; Myrose v. Swain, 172 N.C. 223 , 90 S.E. 118 ; Byrd v. Southerland, 186 N.C. 384 , 119 S.E. 2 ; Cecil v. Lumber Co., 197 N.C. 81 , 147 S.E. 735 ; In re Will of Beard, 202 N.C. 661 , 163 S.E. 748 ; Greene v. Dishman, 202 N.C. 811 , 164 S.E. 342 ; S. v. Bittings, 206 N.C. 798 , 175 S.E. 299 ; Steelman v. Benfield, 228 N.C. 651 , 46 S.E. 2d 829 ; Suits v. Insurance Co., 241 N.C. 483 , 85 S.E. 2d 602 . 1956Wheeler v. Cole, 164 N.C. 378 , 80 S.E. 241 ; Register v. Power Co., 165 N.C. 234 , 81 S.E. 326 ; Carter v. Reaves, 167 N.C. 131 , 83 S.E. 248 ; Rogers v. Jones, 172 N.C. 156 , 90 S.E. 117 ; Myrose v. Swain, 172 N.C. 223 , 90 S.E. 118 ; Byrd v. Southerland, 186 N.C. 384 , 119 S.E. 2 ; Cecil v. Lumber Co., 197 N.C. 81 , 147 S.E. 735 ; In re Will of Beard, 202 N.C. 661 , 163 S.E. 748 ; Greene v. Dishman, 202 N.C. 811 , 164 S.E. 342 ; S. v. Bittings, 206 N.C. 798 , 175 S.E. 299 ; Steelman v. Benfield, 228 N.C. 651 , 46 S.E. 2d 829 ; Suits v. Insurance Co., 241 N.C. 483 , 85 S.E. 2d 602 .	1	1956–1956
In Re Will of Beard neutral nc · 1932 2 sentences 1956Wheeler v. Cole, 164 N.C. 378 , 80 S.E. 241 ; Register v. Power Co., 165 N.C. 234 , 81 S.E. 326 ; Carter v. Reaves, 167 N.C. 131 , 83 S.E. 248 ; Rogers v. Jones, 172 N.C. 156 , 90 S.E. 117 ; Myrose v. Swain, 172 N.C. 223 , 90 S.E. 118 ; Byrd v. Southerland, 186 N.C. 384 , 119 S.E. 2 ; Cecil v. Lumber Co., 197 N.C. 81 , 147 S.E. 735 ; In re Will of Beard, 202 N.C. 661 , 163 S.E. 748 ; Greene v. Dishman, 202 N.C. 811 , 164 S.E. 342 ; S. v. Bittings, 206 N.C. 798 , 175 S.E. 299 ; Steelman v. Benfield, 228 N.C. 651 , 46 S.E. 2d 829 ; Suits v. Insurance Co., 241 N.C. 483 , 85 S.E. 2d 602 . 1956Wheeler v. Cole, 164 N.C. 378 , 80 S.E. 241 ; Register v. Power Co., 165 N.C. 234 , 81 S.E. 326 ; Carter v. Reaves, 167 N.C. 131 , 83 S.E. 248 ; Rogers v. Jones, 172 N.C. 156 , 90 S.E. 117 ; Myrose v. Swain, 172 N.C. 223 , 90 S.E. 118 ; Byrd v. Southerland, 186 N.C. 384 , 119 S.E. 2 ; Cecil v. Lumber Co., 197 N.C. 81 , 147 S.E. 735 ; In re Will of Beard, 202 N.C. 661 , 163 S.E. 748 ; Greene v. Dishman, 202 N.C. 811 , 164 S.E. 342 ; S. v. Bittings, 206 N.C. 798 , 175 S.E. 299 ; Steelman v. Benfield, 228 N.C. 651 , 46 S.E. 2d 829 ; Suits v. Insurance Co., 241 N.C. 483 , 85 S.E. 2d 602 .	1	1956–1956
Register v. Tidewater Power Co. green nc · 1914 2 sentences 1956Wheeler v. Cole, 164 N.C. 378 , 80 S.E. 241 ; Register v. Power Co., 165 N.C. 234 , 81 S.E. 326 ; Carter v. Reaves, 167 N.C. 131 , 83 S.E. 248 ; Rogers v. Jones, 172 N.C. 156 , 90 S.E. 117 ; Myrose v. Swain, 172 N.C. 223 , 90 S.E. 118 ; Byrd v. Southerland, 186 N.C. 384 , 119 S.E. 2 ; Cecil v. Lumber Co., 197 N.C. 81 , 147 S.E. 735 ; In re Will of Beard, 202 N.C. 661 , 163 S.E. 748 ; Greene v. Dishman, 202 N.C. 811 , 164 S.E. 342 ; S. v. Bittings, 206 N.C. 798 , 175 S.E. 299 ; Steelman v. Benfield, 228 N.C. 651 , 46 S.E. 2d 829 ; Suits v. Insurance Co., 241 N.C. 483 , 85 S.E. 2d 602 . 1956Wheeler v. Cole, 164 N.C. 378 , 80 S.E. 241 ; Register v. Power Co., 165 N.C. 234 , 81 S.E. 326 ; Carter v. Reaves, 167 N.C. 131 , 83 S.E. 248 ; Rogers v. Jones, 172 N.C. 156 , 90 S.E. 117 ; Myrose v. Swain, 172 N.C. 223 , 90 S.E. 118 ; Byrd v. Southerland, 186 N.C. 384 , 119 S.E. 2 ; Cecil v. Lumber Co., 197 N.C. 81 , 147 S.E. 735 ; In re Will of Beard, 202 N.C. 661 , 163 S.E. 748 ; Greene v. Dishman, 202 N.C. 811 , 164 S.E. 342 ; S. v. Bittings, 206 N.C. 798 , 175 S.E. 299 ; Steelman v. Benfield, 228 N.C. 651 , 46 S.E. 2d 829 ; Suits v. Insurance Co., 241 N.C. 483 , 85 S.E. 2d 602 .	1	1956–1956
Byrd v. . Southerland green nc · 1923 2 sentences 1956Wheeler v. Cole, 164 N.C. 378 , 80 S.E. 241 ; Register v. Power Co., 165 N.C. 234 , 81 S.E. 326 ; Carter v. Reaves, 167 N.C. 131 , 83 S.E. 248 ; Rogers v. Jones, 172 N.C. 156 , 90 S.E. 117 ; Myrose v. Swain, 172 N.C. 223 , 90 S.E. 118 ; Byrd v. Southerland, 186 N.C. 384 , 119 S.E. 2 ; Cecil v. Lumber Co., 197 N.C. 81 , 147 S.E. 735 ; In re Will of Beard, 202 N.C. 661 , 163 S.E. 748 ; Greene v. Dishman, 202 N.C. 811 , 164 S.E. 342 ; S. v. Bittings, 206 N.C. 798 , 175 S.E. 299 ; Steelman v. Benfield, 228 N.C. 651 , 46 S.E. 2d 829 ; Suits v. Insurance Co., 241 N.C. 483 , 85 S.E. 2d 602 . 1956Wheeler v. Cole, 164 N.C. 378 , 80 S.E. 241 ; Register v. Power Co., 165 N.C. 234 , 81 S.E. 326 ; Carter v. Reaves, 167 N.C. 131 , 83 S.E. 248 ; Rogers v. Jones, 172 N.C. 156 , 90 S.E. 117 ; Myrose v. Swain, 172 N.C. 223 , 90 S.E. 118 ; Byrd v. Southerland, 186 N.C. 384 , 119 S.E. 2 ; Cecil v. Lumber Co., 197 N.C. 81 , 147 S.E. 735 ; In re Will of Beard, 202 N.C. 661 , 163 S.E. 748 ; Greene v. Dishman, 202 N.C. 811 , 164 S.E. 342 ; S. v. Bittings, 206 N.C. 798 , 175 S.E. 299 ; Steelman v. Benfield, 228 N.C. 651 , 46 S.E. 2d 829 ; Suits v. Insurance Co., 241 N.C. 483 , 85 S.E. 2d 602 .	1	1956–1956
Cecil v. . Lumber Company green nc · 1929	1	1956–1956
Steelman v. . Benfield green nc · 1948	1	1956–1956
Wheeler v. . Cole neutral nc · 1913	1	1956–1956
Rogers v. . Jones neutral nc · 1916	1	1956–1956
State v. . Bittings green nc · 1934	1	1956–1956
Carter v. . Reaves neutral nc · 1914	1	1956–1956
Watson Industries, Inc. v. Shaw green nc · 1952	1	1953–1953
First National Bank v. Middleton green mont · 1921	1	1927–1927
Bateman v. Kramer Lumber Co. green nc · 1911	1	1912–1912

Statutes the citing opinions construe

NC § N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7A-30 (4) NC § N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1 (4) NC § N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1 (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 118 (1913–2025) IL 107 (1877–2026) CA 100 (1912–2026) UT 87 (1988–2026) FL 86 (1959–2026) MI 71 (1949–2025) PA 71 (1897–2025) OR 67 (1893–2026) NY 49 (1896–2022) OH 47 (1926–2025) CO 46 (1915–2026) IA 39 (1941–2025) MN 37 (1967–2026) WI 36 (1923–2024) MO 35 (1899–2020) AR 35 (1929–2025) AZ 34 (1946–2025) WA 34 (1918–2019) MD 33 (1943–2023) MA 31 (1863–2026) CT 29 (1955–2023) NJ 29 (1869–2026) HI 28 (1978–2022) IN 27 (1904–2023) WV 25 (1913–2024) MS 22 (1895–2023) AL 21 (1885–2008) NC 21 (1912–2026) LA 21 (1937–2019) NM 18 (1939–2019) MT 18 (1877–2026) GA 16 (1909–2024) VT 15 (1915–2026) ND 15 (1974–2023) TN 15 (1942–2022) DC 14 (1975–2024) AK 12 (1975–2018) VA 10 (1962–2026) KS 10 (1904–2023) ID 10 (1975–2024) SD 10 (1897–2015) RI 10 (1968–2018) NE 8 (1897–2013) DE 8 (1920–2026) NV 7 (1917–2018) OK 7 (1919–2011) NH 7 (1978–2021) WY 7 (1933–2009) SC 5 (1936–2023) KY 5 (1917–2009) ME 5 (1958–2020) PR 4 (1930–1967)

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

Your account

Appearance