20 North Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1987–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Allis-Chalmers Corp. v. Lueckgreen2 sentences2009Under Section 301, when the resolution of a state law claim is “substantially dependent” upon the interpretation or application of the provisions in a collective bargaining agreement, “that claim must either be treated as a § 301 claim or dismissed as pre-empted by federal labor-contract law.” Allis-Chalmers Corp. v. Lueck, 471 U.S. 202, 220 , 85 L. 2009Under Section 301, when the resolution of a state law claim is “substantially dependent” upon the interpretation or application of the provisions in a collective bargaining agreement, “that claim must either be treated as a § 301 claim or dismissed as pre-empted by federal labor-contract law.” Allis-Chalmers Corp. v. Lueck, 471 U.S. 202, 220 , 85 L. | 2 | 2 |
Gunn v. Mintongreen2 sentences2021As the United States Supreme Court recently reaffirmed, “federal jurisdiction over a state law claim will lie if a federal issue is: (1) necessarily raised, (2) actually disputed, (3) substantial, and (4) capable of resolution in federal court without disrupting the federal-state balance approved by Congress.” Gunn, 568 U.S. at 258 ; see also Grable & Sons Metal Prods., Inc. v. Darue Eng’g & Mgf., 545 U.S. 308 , 312–14 (2005) (addressing federal arising under jurisdiction in the context of 28 U.S.C. § 1331 ). 2017Operating Corp., 486 U.S. 800, 809 (1988); see also Gunn v. Minton, 133 S. Ct. 1059, 1065 (2013) (clarifying the standard to determine whether a state law claim arises under federal law by articulating a four-part inquiry.) The mere existence of a patent law issue does not necessarily mean that the claim arises under federal patent law. | 1 | 2 |
Tire Engineering & Distribution, LLC v. Shandong Linglong Rubber Co.green1 sentence2025See Tire Eng’g & Distrib., LLC v. Shandong Linglong Rubber Co., 682 F.3d 292, 309 (4th Cir. 2012). 81. | 1 | 1 |
Grable & Sons Metal Products, Inc. v. Darue Engineering & Manufacturinggreen1 sentence2021As the United States Supreme Court recently reaffirmed, “federal jurisdiction over a state law claim will lie if a federal issue is: (1) necessarily raised, (2) actually disputed, (3) substantial, and (4) capable of resolution in federal court without disrupting the federal-state balance approved by Congress.” Gunn, 568 U.S. at 258 ; see also Grable & Sons Metal Prods., Inc. v. Darue Eng’g & Mgf., 545 U.S. 308 , 312–14 (2005) (addressing federal arising under jurisdiction in the context of 28 U.S.C. § 1331 ). | 1 | 1 |
Rosciszewski v. Arete Associatesgreen1 sentence2018Rosciszewski, 1 F.3d at 230; see also Out of the Box Developers, 2012 NCBC LEXIS 55 , at *20–21. | 1 | 1 |
Christianson v. Colt Industries Operating Corp.green1 sentence2017Operating Corp., 486 U.S. 800, 809 (1988); see also Gunn v. Minton, 133 S. Ct. 1059, 1065 (2013) (clarifying the standard to determine whether a state law claim arises under federal law by articulating a four-part inquiry.) The mere existence of a patent law issue does not necessarily mean that the claim arises under federal patent law. | 1 | 1 |
Atlantic & East Carolina Railway Co. v. Wheatly Oil Co.green1 sentence2016App. 748, 753 , 594 S.E.2d 425, 429 (2004). {58} In addition, where, as here, “the state law claim for breach of contract remains viable, it is unnecessary to address the claim for unjust enrichment [on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion].” Forest2Market, Inc. v. Am. | 1 | 1 |
Person Earth Movers, Inc. v. Bucklandgreen2 sentences2012Specifically, plaintiffs cite the following passage from Person Earth Movers, Inc. v. Buckland: “[t]he statute of limitations for a state law claim ... expires at the end of the limitations period described by the appropriate state law, and is extended only by that amount of time the debtor is in bankruptcy.” 136 N.C. 2012App. 658, 660 , 525 S.E.2d 239, 240 (2000). | 1 | 1 |
Southland Corp. v. Keatinggreen1 sentence2010See also Southland Corp. v. Keating, 465 U.S. 1, 16 (1984). 76 Pl. 2nd Resp. | 1 | 1 |
Glen Kermit Till and Bettie F. Till v. Unifirst Federal Savings and Loan Association and Wortman & Mann, Inc.green2 sentences2009However, the Ford court acknowledged that “[m]ost . . . federal courts . . . have determined that whether a state law claim based on the violation of a federal statute may be brought is a matter of state law for state courts to decide[.]” Id.; see also Hofbauer, 700 F.2d at 1201 (holding that, although a federal statute may create a standard of conduct the violation of which suffices to support a claim arising under state law, whether such a claim exists is a question best left entirely to state courts); Till, 653 F.2d at 161-62 (holding that the existence of state law claims depends upon stat 2009As a result of the fact that the absence of a federal private right of action under the NFIA does not inherently preclude the recognition of a state law claim that encompasses conduct prohibited by 42 U.S.C. § 4104a(a)(1), we are now called upon to decide whether a lender is liable under North Carolina law for damages resulting from a failure to disclose the fact that property is located in a flood plain. *40 In determining whether such a state law claim should be recognized in North Carolina, we find the analysis of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in Till, 653 F.2d 15 | 1 | 1 |
cluster 414495green1 sentence2009However, the Ford court acknowledged that “[m]ost . . . federal courts . . . have determined that whether a state law claim based on the violation of a federal statute may be brought is a matter of state law for state courts to decide[.]” Id.; see also Hofbauer, 700 F.2d at 1201 (holding that, although a federal statute may create a standard of conduct the violation of which suffices to support a claim arising under state law, whether such a claim exists is a question best left entirely to state courts); Till, 653 F.2d at 161-62 (holding that the existence of state law claims depends upon stat | 1 | 1 |
Midgett v. North Carolina State Highway Commissiongreen2 sentences2007However, the term "adequate" in Corum is not used to mean "potentially successful." Just before the above-quoted statement in Corum , the Court quotes this from Midgett v. Highway Commission: "`And where the Constitution points out no remedy and no statute affords an adequate remedy under a particular fact situation, the common law will furnish the appropriate action for adequate redress of such grievance.'" Id. (quoting Midgett v. North Carolina State Highway Commission, 260 N.C. 241, 249-50 , 132 S.E.2d 599, 608 (1963)). 2007However, the term "adequate" in Corum is not used to mean "potentially successful." Just before the above-quoted statement in Corum , the Court quotes this from Midgett v. Highway Commission: "`And where the Constitution points out no remedy and no statute affords an adequate remedy under a particular fact situation, the common law will furnish the appropriate action for adequate redress of such grievance.'" Id. (quoting Midgett v. North Carolina State Highway Commission, 260 N.C. 241, 249-50 , 132 S.E.2d 599, 608 (1963)). | 1 | 1 |
Pizlo v. Bethlehem Steel Corporationgreen1 sentence1992Pizlo v. Bethlehem Steel Corp., 884 F.2d 116, 120 (4th Cir. 1989). | 1 | 1 |
Chiplin Enterprises, Inc. v. City of Lebanongreen1 sentence1987See Chiplin Enterprises, Inc. v. City of Lebanon, 712 F. 2d 1524 (1st Cir. 1983). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Corum v. University of North Carolina
green
2 sentences2016Constitutional Claims Plaintiff's sole argument regarding his constitutional claims is that he does not have an adequate remedy under state law due to defendant's assertion of governmental immunity, citing Craig v. New Hanover County Board of Education, 363 N.C. 334 , 340, 678 S.E.2d 351 , 355 (2009), for the proposition that "if 'governmental immunity stands as an absolute bar,' the state law claim 'does not provide an adequate remedy.' " In Corum v. University of North Carolina, our Supreme Court stated, "[I]n the absence of an adequate state remedy, one whose state constitutional rights hav 2016Constitutional Claims Plaintiff's sole argument regarding his constitutional claims is that he does not have an adequate remedy under state law due to defendant's assertion of governmental immunity, citing Craig v. New Hanover County Board of Education, 363 N.C. 334 , 340, 678 S.E.2d 351 , 355 (2009), for the proposition that "if 'governmental immunity stands as an absolute bar,' the state law claim 'does not provide an adequate remedy.' " In Corum v. University of North Carolina, our Supreme Court stated, "[I]n the absence of an adequate state remedy, one whose state constitutional rights hav | 2 | 2007–2016 |
Rousselo v. Starling
green
2 sentences2018We next addressed the adequacy of a state law claim in Rousselo v. Starling , 128 N.C. 2018App. 439 , 495 S.E.2d 725 (1998), in which the plaintiff sued a State Highway Patrolman in both his official and individual capacities for, inter alia , an unreasonable search. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
American Telephone And Telegraph Company v. Integrated Network Corporation
green
1 sentence2017AT&T Co. v. Integrated Network Corp., 972 F.2d 1321 , 1325 (Fed. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Craig Ex Rel. Craig v. New Hanover County Board of Education
green
2 sentences2016Constitutional Claims Plaintiff's sole argument regarding his constitutional claims is that he does not have an adequate remedy under state law due to defendant's assertion of governmental immunity, citing Craig v. New Hanover County Board of Education, 363 N.C. 334 , 340, 678 S.E.2d 351 , 355 (2009), for the proposition that "if 'governmental immunity stands as an absolute bar,' the state law claim 'does not provide an adequate remedy.' " In Corum v. University of North Carolina, our Supreme Court stated, "[I]n the absence of an adequate state remedy, one whose state constitutional rights hav 2016Constitutional Claims Plaintiff's sole argument regarding his constitutional claims is that he does not have an adequate remedy under state law due to defendant's assertion of governmental immunity, citing Craig v. New Hanover County Board of Education, 363 N.C. 334 , 340, 678 S.E.2d 351 , 355 (2009), for the proposition that "if 'governmental immunity stands as an absolute bar,' the state law claim 'does not provide an adequate remedy.' " In Corum v. University of North Carolina, our Supreme Court stated, "[I]n the absence of an adequate state remedy, one whose state constitutional rights hav | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc.
green
2 sentences2015Auth. v. Lofton, ---N.C.App. ----, ----, 767 S.E.2d 63 , 69 (2014) (citing Cipollone v. Liggett Grp., Inc., 505 U.S. 504 , 516, 112 S.Ct. 2608 , 2617, 120 L.Ed.2d 407 (1992) ). 2015Auth. v. Lofton, ---N.C.App. ----, ----, 767 S.E.2d 63 , 69 (2014) (citing Cipollone v. Liggett Grp., Inc., 505 U.S. 504 , 516, 112 S.Ct. 2608 , 2617, 120 L.Ed.2d 407 (1992) ). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Harter v. Vernon
green
2 sentences2014Harter, 139 N.C. 2014Harter, 139 N.C. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Beneficial National Bank v. Anderson
green
1 sentence2007In fact, “[b]ecause [Sections] 85 and 86 provide the exclusive cause of action for such claims, there is, in short, no such thing as a state-law claim of usury against a national bank.” Id. 12 C.F.R. § 7.4001 (2007) provides: “The term ‘interest’ as used in 12 U.S.C. 85 includes any payment compensating a creditor or prospective creditor for an extension of credit, making available of a line of credit, or any default or breach by a borrower of a condition upon which credit was extended.” Moreover, 12 C.F.R. § 7.4008 identifies the types of state laws that are preempted with respect to national | 1 | 2007–2007 |
cluster 728735
green
1 sentence2001In considering whether a particular state law claim falls within this category, it is important to determine whether the claim is “aimed at obtaining ERISA benefits.” Coyne & Delany Co., 98 F.3d at 1471 . | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Lumber Co. v. Brooks, Comr. of Labor
green
1 sentence1990Ward Lumber Co. v. Brooks, 50 N.C. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
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.