119 North Carolina opinions name it 4 courts 1902–2026 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Johnson v. Lambgreen2 sentences2013See also Johnson v. Lamb, 273 N.C. 701, 707 , 161 S.E.2d 131, 137 (1968) (“If an employee is negligent while acting in the course of employment and such negligence is the proximate cause of injury to another, the employer is liable in damages under the doctrine of respondeat superior, notwithstanding the fact that the employer, himself, exercised due care in the supervision and direction of the employee, the employee’s violation of instructions being no defense to the employer.” (emphasis added)). 2013See also Johnson v. Lamb, 273 N.C. 701, 707 , 161 S.E.2d 131, 137 (1968) (“If an employee is negligent while acting in the course of employment and such negligence is the proximate cause of injury to another, the employer is liable in damages under the doctrine of respondeat superior, notwithstanding the fact that the employer, himself, exercised due care in the supervision and direction of the employee, the employee’s violation of instructions being no defense to the employer.” (emphasis added)). | 7 | 7 |
Pinnix v. . Griffingreen2 sentences2026And North Carolina common law has long recognized that “judgment against the servant conclusive[ly] bars a later action by the same plaintiff against the principal [when] held, if at all, under the doctrine of respondeat superior.” Pinnix v. Griffin, 221 N.C. 348, 350 (1942) (ellipses omitted). 2000App. 235, 246 , 481 S.E.2d 88, 95 (1997) (employer’s vicarious liability under theory of ratification or respondeat superior is limited to the amount of damages awarded against employee), rev’d on other grounds, 348 N.C. 260 , 498 S.E.2d 602 (1998), and Pinnix v. Griffin, 221 N.C. 348, 351 , 20 S.E.2d 366, 369 (1942) (where “liability, if any, of a principal or master to a third person is purely derivative and dependent entirely upon the principle of respondeat superior,” the “plaintiff can have but one satisfaction — payment of the damages caused by the wrongful act of [the servant]”); see ge | 3 | 7 |
In Re Estate of Redding v. Welborngreen2 sentences2019Accordingly, “[w]hen an employee commits a tort while acting within the scope of his employment, the tort can be imputed to the employer under the doctrine of respondeat superior.” Estate of Redding v. Welborn, 170 N.C. 2019Aldridge Compl. ¶ 238; Goulet Compl. ¶ 206; Kelly Compl. ¶ 321; Olin Compl. ¶ 247; Peterson Compl. ¶ 206; Williams Compl. ¶ 222.) “When an employee commits a tort while acting within the scope of his employment, the tort can be imputed to the employer under the doctrine of respondeat superior.” Estate of Redding v. Welborn, 170 N.C. | 3 | 3 |
Medley v. North Carolina Department of Correctiongreen2 sentences2026“Where a principal has a nondelegable duty, one with whom the principal contracts to perform that duty is as a matter of law an agent for purposes of applying the doctrine of respondeat superior.” Medley, 330 N.C. at 845 . 2026Cf. Medley, 330 N.C. at 845 (“Where a principal has a nondelegable duty, one with whom the principal contracts to perform that duty is as a matter of law an agent for purposes of applying the doctrine of respondeat superior.” (emphasis added)). | 2 | 3 |
Barney v. North Carolina State Highway Commissiongreen2 sentences2026State Highway Comm’n, 282 N.C. 278, 284 (1972) (“Under the Tort Claims Act negligence, contributory negligence and proximate cause, as well as the applicability of the doctrine of respondeat superior, are to be determined under the same rules as those applicable to litigation between private individuals.”). 1992"Under the Tort Claims Act negligence, contributory negligence and proximate cause, as well as the applicability of the doctrine of respondeat superior, are to be determined under the same rules as those applicable to litigation between private individuals." Barney v. Highway Comm., 282 N.C. 278, 284 , 192 S.E.2d 273, 277 (1972). | 2 | 3 |
Gordon v. Garnergreen2 sentences2018App. 649, 658 , 493 S.E.2d 58, 63 (1997) (“Under the doctrine of respondeat superior, for one defendant to be held vicariously liable for the actions of another, an employer-employee relationship must exist between the two.”). 2016Id. at 649 , 493 S.E.2d at 64 (defining an independent contractor as “one who exercises an independent employment and contracts to do certain work according to his own judgment and method, without being subject to his employer except as to the result of his work” (quoting Youngblood v. N. State Ford Truck Sales, 321 N.C. 380, 384 , 364 S.E.2d 433, 437 (1988))). {25} The Amended Complaint does not allege that Erik Hoghaug is employed by BSG in any capacity. | 2 | 3 |
Thompson v. Lassitergreen2 sentences2000App. 235, 246 , 481 S.E.2d 88, 95 (1997) (employer’s vicarious liability under theory of ratification or respondeat superior is limited to the amount of damages awarded against employee), rev’d on other grounds, 348 N.C. 260 , 498 S.E.2d 602 (1998), and Pinnix v. Griffin, 221 N.C. 348, 351 , 20 S.E.2d 366, 369 (1942) (where “liability, if any, of a principal or master to a third person is purely derivative and dependent entirely upon the principle of respondeat superior,” the “plaintiff can have but one satisfaction — payment of the damages caused by the wrongful act of [the servant]”); see ge 2000App. 235, 246 , 481 S.E.2d 88, 95 (1997) (employer’s vicarious liability under theory of ratification or respondeat superior is limited to the amount of damages awarded against employee), rev’d on other grounds, 348 N.C. 260 , 498 S.E.2d 602 (1998), and Pinnix v. Griffin, 221 N.C. 348, 351 , 20 S.E.2d 366, 369 (1942) (where “liability, if any, of a principal or master to a third person is purely derivative and dependent entirely upon the principle of respondeat superior,” the “plaintiff can have but one satisfaction — payment of the damages caused by the wrongful act of [the servant]”); see ge | 1 | 3 |
Youngblood v. North State Ford Truck Salesgreen2 sentences2016Id. at 649 , 493 S.E.2d at 64 (defining an independent contractor as “one who exercises an independent employment and contracts to do certain work according to his own judgment and method, without being subject to his employer except as to the result of his work” (quoting Youngblood v. N. State Ford Truck Sales, 321 N.C. 380, 384 , 364 S.E.2d 433, 437 (1988))). {25} The Amended Complaint does not allege that Erik Hoghaug is employed by BSG in any capacity. 2016Id. at 649 , 493 S.E.2d at 64 (defining an independent contractor as “one who exercises an independent employment and contracts to do certain work according to his own judgment and method, without being subject to his employer except as to the result of his work” (quoting Youngblood v. N. State Ford Truck Sales, 321 N.C. 380, 384 , 364 S.E.2d 433, 437 (1988))). {25} The Amended Complaint does not allege that Erik Hoghaug is employed by BSG in any capacity. | 1 | 2 |
Hylton v. Koontzgreen2 sentences2013“Under the doctrine of respondeat superior, a hospital is liable for the negligence of a physician or surgeon acting as its agent.” Hylton v. Koontz, 138 N.C. 2013App. 629, 635 , 532 S.E.2d 252, 257 (2000), disc, review denied and appeal dismissed, 353 N.C. 373 , 546 S.E.2d 603 -04 (2001). | 1 | 2 |
MacFarlane v. North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commissiongreen2 sentences1991Smith v. R.R., 151 N.C. 479 , 66 S.E. 435 (1909) (master not a joint tort-feasor because not active participant in injury; hence released by servant’s release); see also MacFarlane v. Wildlife Resources Com., 244 N.C. at 387 , 93 S.E.2d at 560 (where an injured person reached a settlement with the employee, he could not thereafter recover against the employer). 1991Smith v. R.R., 151 N.C. 479 , 66 S.E. 435 (1909) (master not a joint tort-feasor because not active participant in injury; hence released by servant’s release); see also MacFarlane v. Wildlife Resources Com., 244 N.C. at 387 , 93 S.E.2d at 560 (where an injured person reached a settlement with the employee, he could not thereafter recover against the employer). | 1 | 2 |
Hayes v. City of Wilmingtongreen2 sentences1985See Hayes v. City of Wilmington, 243 N.C. 525 , 91 S.E. 2d 673 (1956). 1985See Hayes v. City of Wilmington, 243 N.C. 525 , 91 S.E. 2d 673 (1956). | 1 | 2 |
Morrow Ex Rel. Morrow v. Southern Railway Co.green2 sentences1982See Morrow v. Railroad, 213 N.C. 127 , 195 S.E. 383 (1938). 1982See Morrow v. Railroad, 213 N.C. 127 , 195 S.E. 383 (1938). | 1 | 2 |
| Gadsden v. George H. Crafts & Co.green | 1 | 2 |
| Hudson v. Gulf Oil Co.green | 1 | 1 |
| Plummer v. Henry Ex Rel. Robertsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Sutton v. Drivergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Vaughn v. North Carolina Department of Human Resourcesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| White v. Consolidated Planning, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Servs.green | 1 | 1 |
| Estes v. ComStock Homebuilding Companies, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| Ellis v. American Service Co.green | 1 | 1 |
| Kim v. Professional Business Brokers Ltd.green | 1 | 1 |
| Reich v. Pricegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Watson v. Dixongreen | 1 | 1 |
| Poole v. Copland, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| Willoughby v. KENNETH W. WILKINS, MD, PAgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Rory W. White v. Carroll W. Hardy, the United States of America, Edward Moore, and Coastal Cab Co., Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| Edwards v. Akiongreen | 1 | 1 |
| Edwards v. Akiongreen | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Wyllie v. . Palmer
green
2 sentences1929Linville v. Nissen, supra. And it is well settled by numerous decisions, here and elsewhere, that “the doctrine of respondeat superior applies only when the relation of master and servant is shown to exist between the wrongdoer and the person sought to be charged for the result of such neglect or wrong, at the time and in respect to the very transaction out of which the injury arose.” Wyllie v. Palmer, 137 N. Y., 248 ; Doran v. Thomsen, supra; Wilkie v. Stancil, 196 N. C., 794 , 147 S. E., 296 ; Grier v. Grier, 192 N. C., 760 , 135 S. E., 852 . 1929And it is well settled by numerous decisions, here and elsewhere, that "the doctrine of respondeat superior applies only when the relation of master and servant is shown to exist between the wrongdoer and the person sought to be charged for the result of such neglect or wrong, at the time and in respect to the very transaction out of which the injury arose." Wyllie v. Palmer , 137 N.Y. 248 ; Doran v. Thomsen, supra; Wilkie v. Stancil , 196 N.C. 794 , 147 S.E. 296 ; Grier v. Grier , 192 N.C. 760 , 135 S.E. 852 . | 5 | 1929–1941 |
Ingram v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company
green
2 sentences1968Thus, “where liability has been imposed on the master because of the negligence of his servant, and the master did not participate in the wrong and incurs liability solely under the doctrine of respondeat superior, the master, having discharged the liability, may recover full indemnity from the servant.” Ingram v. Insurance Co., 258 N.C. 632, 635 , 129 S.E. 2d 222, 225 . 1968Thus, “where liability has been imposed on the master because of the negligence of his servant, and the master did not participate in the wrong and incurs liability solely under the doctrine of respondeat superior, the master, having discharged the liability, may recover full indemnity from the servant.” Ingram v. Insurance Co., 258 N.C. 632, 635 , 129 S.E. 2d 222, 225 . | 4 | 1963–1977 |
Leary v. . Land Bank
neutral
2 sentences1960This is the law when the master is not guilty of any independent or concurrent wrong but must be held, if at all, under the doctrine of respondeat superior.” Holdings to the same effect appear in Stone v. Coach Co., 238 N.C. 662, 664 , 78 S.E. 2d 605 ; Leary v. Land Bank, 215 N.C. 501, 506 , 2 S.E. 2d 570 ; Morrow v. R. 1960This is the law when the master is not guilty of any independent or concurrent wrong but must be held, if at all, under the doctrine of respondeat superior.” Holdings to the same effect appear in Stone v. Coach Co., 238 N.C. 662, 664 , 78 S.E. 2d 605 ; Leary v. Land Bank, 215 N.C. 501, 506 , 2 S.E. 2d 570 ; Morrow v. R. | 4 | 1939–1963 |
Hogan v. Forsyth Country Club Co.
green
2 sentences2009It is well settled in this State that “[i]f the act of the employee was a means or method of doing that which he was employed to do, though the act be unlawful and unauthorized or even forbidden, the employer is liable for the resulting injury, but he is not liable if the employee departed, however briefly, from his duties in order to accomplish a purpose of his own, which purpose was not incidental to the work he was employed to do.” Hogan v. Forsyth Country Club Co., 79 N.C. 1987App. 483 , 340 S.E. 2d 116 , disc. rev. denied, 317 N.C. 334 , 346 S.E. 2d 140 (1986) this Court held that there was a jury question as to whether the plaintiff could recover for intentional infliction of emotional distress from the employer of the person who was allegedly harassing her, under the doctrine of respondeat superior. | 3 | 1987–2009 |
Smith v. South & Western Railroad
green
2 sentences1991Smith v. R.R., 151 N.C. 479 , 66 S.E. 435 (1909) (master not a joint tort-feasor because not active participant in injury; hence released by servant’s release); see also MacFarlane v. Wildlife Resources Com., 244 N.C. at 387 , 93 S.E.2d at 560 (where an injured person reached a settlement with the employee, he could not thereafter recover against the employer). 1991Smith v. R.R., 151 N.C. 479 , 66 S.E. 435 (1909) (master not a joint tort-feasor because not active participant in injury; hence released by servant’s release); see also MacFarlane v. Wildlife Resources Com., 244 N.C. at 387 , 93 S.E.2d at 560 (where an injured person reached a settlement with the employee, he could not thereafter recover against the employer). | 3 | 1963–1991 |
Travis v. Duckworth
green
2 sentences1984Travis v. Duckworth, 237 N.C. 471 , 75 S.E. 2d 309 (1953). 1984Travis v. Duckworth, 237 N.C. 471 , 75 S.E. 2d 309 (1953). | 3 | 1959–1984 |
Howard v. Sasso
green
2 sentences1984Since the owner of a vehicle may be held liable for the negligence of an non-owner/operator under the doctrine of respondeat superior, Howard v. Sasso, 253 N.C. 185 , 116 S.E. 2d 341 (1960), proof of ownership is sufficient to take the case to the jury on the question of the legal responsibility of the defendant for the operation of the vehicle. 1984Since the owner of a vehicle may be held liable for the negligence of an non-owner/operator under the doctrine of respondeat superior, Howard v. Sasso, 253 N.C. 185 , 116 S.E. 2d 341 (1960), proof of ownership is sufficient to take the case to the jury on the question of the legal responsibility of the defendant for the operation of the vehicle. | 3 | 1969–1984 |
Osborne v. Gilreath
neutral
2 sentences1969G.S. 20-71.1 applies when . . the plaintiff, upon sufficient allegations (emphasis added) seeks to hold the owner liable for the negligence of a non-owner operator under the doctrine of respondeat superior.” Howard v. Sasso, 253 N.C. 185 , 116 S.E. 2d 341 ; Belmany v. Overton, 270 N.C. 400 , 154 S.E. 2d 538 ; Taylor v. Parks, 254 N.C. 266 , 118 S.E. 2d 779 ; Whiteside v. McCarson, 250 N.C. 673 , 110 S.E. 2d 295 ; Osborne v. Gilreath, 241 N.C. 685 , 86 S.E. 2d 462 ; Hartley v. Smith, 239 N.C. 170 , 79 S.E. 2d 767 . 1969G.S. 20-71.1 applies when . . the plaintiff, upon sufficient allegations (emphasis added) seeks to hold the owner liable for the negligence of a non-owner operator under the doctrine of respondeat superior.” Howard v. Sasso, 253 N.C. 185 , 116 S.E. 2d 341 ; Belmany v. Overton, 270 N.C. 400 , 154 S.E. 2d 538 ; Taylor v. Parks, 254 N.C. 266 , 118 S.E. 2d 779 ; Whiteside v. McCarson, 250 N.C. 673 , 110 S.E. 2d 295 ; Osborne v. Gilreath, 241 N.C. 685 , 86 S.E. 2d 462 ; Hartley v. Smith, 239 N.C. 170 , 79 S.E. 2d 767 . | 3 | 1960–1969 |
Hartley v. Smith
green
2 sentences1969G.S. 20-71.1 applies when . . the plaintiff, upon sufficient allegations (emphasis added) seeks to hold the owner liable for the negligence of a non-owner operator under the doctrine of respondeat superior.” Howard v. Sasso, 253 N.C. 185 , 116 S.E. 2d 341 ; Belmany v. Overton, 270 N.C. 400 , 154 S.E. 2d 538 ; Taylor v. Parks, 254 N.C. 266 , 118 S.E. 2d 779 ; Whiteside v. McCarson, 250 N.C. 673 , 110 S.E. 2d 295 ; Osborne v. Gilreath, 241 N.C. 685 , 86 S.E. 2d 462 ; Hartley v. Smith, 239 N.C. 170 , 79 S.E. 2d 767 . 1969G.S. 20-71.1 applies when . . the plaintiff, upon sufficient allegations (emphasis added) seeks to hold the owner liable for the negligence of a non-owner operator under the doctrine of respondeat superior.” Howard v. Sasso, 253 N.C. 185 , 116 S.E. 2d 341 ; Belmany v. Overton, 270 N.C. 400 , 154 S.E. 2d 538 ; Taylor v. Parks, 254 N.C. 266 , 118 S.E. 2d 779 ; Whiteside v. McCarson, 250 N.C. 673 , 110 S.E. 2d 295 ; Osborne v. Gilreath, 241 N.C. 685 , 86 S.E. 2d 462 ; Hartley v. Smith, 239 N.C. 170 , 79 S.E. 2d 767 . | 3 | 1955–1969 |
Whitehurst v. . Elks
neutral
2 sentences1960R., 213 N.C. 127, 129 , 195 S.E. 383 ; Whitehurst v. Elks, 212 N.C. 97, 98 , 192 S.E. 850 . *692 Ordinarily, in order for a judgment to constitute an estoppel there must be identity of parties, subject matter and issues, and only parties and privies are barred, and estopped by a judgment. 1960R., 213 N.C. 127, 129 , 195 S.E. 383 ; Whitehurst v. Elks, 212 N.C. 97, 98 , 192 S.E. 850 . *692 Ordinarily, in order for a judgment to constitute an estoppel there must be identity of parties, subject matter and issues, and only parties and privies are barred, and estopped by a judgment. | 3 | 1942–1960 |
Linville v. . Nissen
green
2 sentences1934“The doctrine of respondeat superior applies only when the relation of master and servant is shown to exist between the wrongdoer and the person sought to be charged for the result of wrong, at the time and in respect to the very transaction out of which the injury arose.” Linville v. Nissen, 162 N. C., 95 (101). 1929He had bought the car for “his own use in going backward and forward.” Gilmers had no interest in it and no control over it except “in times of emergency when used under Cooper’s instructions.” It was held in Linville v. Nissen, 162 N. C., 95, 101 , that the doctrine of respondeat superior applies only when the relation of employer and employee “is shown to exist between the wrongdoer and the person sought to be charged for the result of the wrong at the time and in respeict to the transaction out of which the injury arose.” This familiar principle which has been recently applied in a number o | 3 | 1929–1941 |
Harris v. Miller
green
2 sentences2022Id. at 383 . 2022Id. at 383 . | 2 | 2022–2022 |
Creel v. North Carolina Department of Health & Human Services
green
2 sentences2022“Fundamental to the application of the doctrine of respondeat superior is the requirement that there be an employer-employee relationship between the parties.” Id. “[A]n employer may be held vicariously liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior for a tortious act committed by an ‘employee’ but not [those] committed by an ‘independent contractor.’ ” Creel, 152 N.C. 2022“Fundamental to the application of the doctrine of respondeat superior is the requirement that there be an employer-employee relationship between the parties.” Id. “[A]n employer may be held vicariously liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior for a tortious act committed by an ‘employee’ but not [those] committed by an ‘independent contractor.’ ” Creel, 152 N.C. | 2 | 2012–2022 |
Lambert v. Town of Sylva
green
2 sentences2020TOWN OF SYLVA Opinion of the Court In Lambert I, the trial court “granted directed verdict based upon the defendant’s argument that the doctrine of respondeat superior does not apply to plaintiff’s claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 . . . .” Lambert I, 259 N.C. 2020TOWN OF SYLVA Opinion of the Court In Lambert I, the trial court “granted directed verdict based upon the defendant’s argument that the doctrine of respondeat superior does not apply to plaintiff’s claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 . . . .” Lambert I, 259 N.C. | 2 | 2020–2020 |
West Ex Rel. West v. F. W. Woolworth Co.
green
2 sentences2005“If an employee is negligent while acting in the course of employment and such negligence is the proximate cause of injury to another, the employer is liable in damages under the doctrine of respondeat superior . . . .” Johnson v. Lamb, 273 N.C. 701, 707 , 161 S.E.2d 131, 137 (1968) (citing Gillis v. Tea Co., 223 N.C. 470 , 27 S.E.2d 283 (1943); West v. Woolworth Co., 215 N.C. 211 , 15 S.E.2d 546 (1939)). 2005Woolworth Co., 215 N.C. 211 , 1 S.E.2d 546 (1939)). | 2 | 1968–2005 |
Gillis v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.
green
2 sentences2005"If an employee is negligent while acting in the course of employment and such negligence is the proximate cause of injury to another, the employer is liable in damages under the doctrine of respondeat superior ...." Johnson v. Lamb, 273 N.C. 701, 707 , 161 S.E.2d 131, 137 (1968) (citing Gillis v. Tea Co., 223 N.C. 470 , 27 S.E.2d 283 (1943); West v. F.W. 2005"If an employee is negligent while acting in the course of employment and such negligence is the proximate cause of injury to another, the employer is liable in damages under the doctrine of respondeat superior ...." Johnson v. Lamb, 273 N.C. 701, 707 , 161 S.E.2d 131, 137 (1968) (citing Gillis v. Tea Co., 223 N.C. 470 , 27 S.E.2d 283 (1943); West v. F.W. | 2 | 1968–2005 |
Bullock v. Crouch
green
2 sentences1997As this Court explained in Wirth v. Bracey: *109 “The decisions generally are to the effect that in an action ex delicto, where the doctrine of respondeat superior is, or may be, invoked, the injured party may sue the servant alone or the master alone, or may bring a single action against both.” Bullock v. Crouch, 243 N.C. 40, 42 , 89 S.E.2d 749 [, 751 (1955)]. 1997As this Court explained in Wirth v. Bracey: *109 “The decisions generally are to the effect that in an action ex delicto, where the doctrine of respondeat superior is, or may be, invoked, the injured party may sue the servant alone or the master alone, or may bring a single action against both.” Bullock v. Crouch, 243 N.C. 40, 42 , 89 S.E.2d 749 [, 751 (1955)]. | 2 | 1963–1997 |
Roberts v. Hill
green
2 sentences1969Chief Justice Barnhill, speaking for the Court in Roberts v. Hill, 240 N.C. 373 , 82 S.E. 2d 373 , said: “A careful consideration of the original Act, ch. 494, S.L. 1951 (of which G.S. 20-71.1 is a codification), including its caption, leads us to the conclusion that it was designed and intended to apply, and does apply, only in those cases where the plaintiff seeks to hold an owner liable for the negligence of a non-owner operator under the doctrine of respondeat superior. ‘Its purpose is to establish a ready means of proving agency in any case where it is charged that the negligence of a non 1969Chief Justice Barnhill, speaking for the Court in Roberts v. Hill, 240 N.C. 373 , 82 S.E. 2d 373 , said: “A careful consideration of the original Act, ch. 494, S.L. 1951 (of which G.S. 20-71.1 is a codification), including its caption, leads us to the conclusion that it was designed and intended to apply, and does apply, only in those cases where the plaintiff seeks to hold an owner liable for the negligence of a non-owner operator under the doctrine of respondeat superior. ‘Its purpose is to establish a ready means of proving agency in any case where it is charged that the negligence of a non | 2 | 1962–1969 |
| Steele v. Moore-Flesher Hauling Company green | 2 | 1965–1968 |
| Stone v. Carolina Coach Co. green | 2 | 1955–1960 |
| Parker v. Underwood green | 2 | 1955–1956 |
| Good Health Dairy Products Corp. v. Emery green | 2 | 1955–1955 |
| Jeffrey v. . Manufacturing Company neutral | 2 | 1947–1947 |
| Martin v. Greensboro-Fayetteville Bus Line green | 2 | 1934–1944 |
| Van Landingham Ex Rel. Van Landingham v. Singer Sewing MacHine Co. green | 2 | 1941–1941 |
| Grier v. . Grier neutral | 2 | 1929–1929 |
| Troxler v. Charter Mandala Center, Inc. green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| Medlin v. Bass green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| Schlossberg v. Goins green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. v. Ogden Plant Maintenance Co. of North Carolina green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| Braswell v. Braswell green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| Norburn v. MacKie green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| Hylton v. Koontz green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| Hylton v. Koontz neutral | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| Pressley v. Turner green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| Holleman v. Aiken green | 1 | 2011–2011 |
| Passmore v. Smith green | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| Denning-Boyles v. WCES, INC. green | 1 | 2004–2004 |
| Barham v. Food World, Inc. green | 1 | 2001–2001 |
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.