Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
17 North Carolina opinions name it 1 courts 1988–2025 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
Locklear v. Lockleargreen2 sentences2006Defendant contends that the court erred in failing to consider evidence of other distributional factors. “[W]hen a party presents evidence which would allow the trial court to determine that an equal distribution of the marital assets would be inequitable, the trial court must then consider all of the distributional factors listed in G.S. 50-20(c), Smith v. Smith, 314 N.C. 80 , 331 S.E.2d 682 (1985), and *262 must make sufficient findings as to each statutory factor on which evidence was offered.” Locklear v. Locklear, 92 N.C. 2006App. 299, 305-6 , 374 S.E.2d 406, 410 (1988). | 1 | 3 |
Rosario v. Rosariogreen2 sentences2016See Rosario v. Rosario, 139 N.C.App. 258 , 262, 533 S.E.2d 274 , 276 (2000) ("[A] finding stating that the trial court has merely given 'due regard' to the section 50-20 factors is insufficient as a matter of law."). 2016See Rosario v. Rosario, 139 N.C.App. 258 , 262, 533 S.E.2d 274 , 276 (2000) ("[A] finding stating that the trial court has merely given 'due regard' to the section 50-20 factors is insufficient as a matter of law."). | 1 | 1 |
Collins v. Collinsgreen2 sentences2015HARDIN Opinion of the Court the distributional factors] has been considered by the trial court, there must be findings reflecting their consideration.” Collins v. Collins, 125 N.C. 2015App. 113, 117 , 479 S.E.2d 240, 242 (1997). | 1 | 1 |
Mrozek v. Mrozekgreen1 sentence2013App. 43, 49-50 , 496 S.E.2d 836, 840-41 (1998) (remanding an equitable distribution order for further proceedings because the trial court’s findings of fact failed to indicate that it had properly considered the relevant distributional factors set out in N.C. | 1 | 1 |
Chandler v. Chandlergreen1 sentence1999App. 66, 73 , 422 S.E.2d 587, 592 (1992), the “court made insufficient findings to show that it considered the evidence that was presented under the distributional factors of N.C.G.S. § 50-20(c).” However, defendant makes no argument, showing, or claim that she was prejudiced in any way by this omission. “[T]o obtain relief on appeal, an appellant must not only show error, but that appellant must also show that the error was material and prejudicial . . . .” *197 Starco, Inc. v. AMG Bonding and Ins. | 1 | 1 |
Haywood v. Haywoodgreen1 sentence1992See N.C.G.S. § 50-20(c)(3) and (7) (Supp. 1991); see also Haywood, 106 N.C. | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Smith v. Smith
green
2 sentences2006Defendant contends that the court erred in failing to consider evidence of other distributional factors. “[W]hen a party presents evidence which would allow the trial court to determine that an equal distribution of the marital assets would be inequitable, the trial court must then consider all of the distributional factors listed in G.S. 50-20(c), Smith v. Smith, 314 N.C. 80 , 331 S.E.2d 682 (1985), and *262 must make sufficient findings as to each statutory factor on which evidence was offered.” Locklear v. Locklear, 92 N.C. 2006Defendant contends that the court erred in failing to consider evidence of other distributional factors. “[W]hen a party presents evidence which would allow the trial court to determine that an equal distribution of the marital assets would be inequitable, the trial court must then consider all of the distributional factors listed in G.S. 50-20(c), Smith v. Smith, 314 N.C. 80 , 331 S.E.2d 682 (1985), and *262 must make sufficient findings as to each statutory factor on which evidence was offered.” Locklear v. Locklear, 92 N.C. | 3 | 1988–2006 |
Armstrong v. Armstrong
green
2 sentences1993Armstrong v. Armstrong, 322 N.C. 396 , 368 S.E.2d 595 (1988). 1993Armstrong v. Armstrong, 322 N.C. 396 , 368 S.E.2d 595 (1988). | 2 | 1988–1993 |
Clemons v. Clemons
green
1 sentence2025App. at 125 , 828 S.E.2d at 510 . “[B]ut in the trial court’s discretion, they may present additional evidence addressing the distributional factors under N.C. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Smith v. Smith
green
1 sentence2025Smith v. Smith, 247 N.C. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Hill v. Sanderson
green
2 sentences2024KERSLAKE Opinion of the Court a distributive award and did not abuse its discretion by ordering a distributive award based on the distributional factors it considered.” Id. at 241 , 781 S.E.2d at 44 . 2024KERSLAKE Opinion of the Court a distributive award and did not abuse its discretion by ordering a distributive award based on the distributional factors it considered.” Id. at 241 , 781 S.E.2d at 44 . | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Embler v. Embler
green
1 sentence2014Embler v. Embler, 159 N.C. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Embler v. Embler
green
1 sentence2003The detailed facts and procedural history of the case are found in Embler v. Embler, 143 N.C. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Friend-Novorska v. Novorska
green
1 sentence2002Friend-Novorska v. Novorska, 143 N.C. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Starco, Inc. v. AMG Bonding & Insurance Services, Inc.
green
1 sentence1999Services, Inc., 124 N.C. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Nelson v. Food Lion, Inc.
neutral
1 sentence1994Locklear v. Locklear, 92 N.C.App. 299 , 374 S.E.2d 406 (1988), review allowed, 324 N.C. 336 , 378 S.E.2d 794 (1989); Cobb v. Cobb, 107 N.C.App. 382 , 420 S.E.2d 212 (1992). | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Locklear v. Locklear
neutral
1 sentence1994Locklear v. Locklear, 92 N.C.App. 299 , 374 S.E.2d 406 (1988), review allowed, 324 N.C. 336 , 378 S.E.2d 794 (1989); Cobb v. Cobb, 107 N.C.App. 382 , 420 S.E.2d 212 (1992). | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Cobb v. Cobb
green
2 sentences1994Locklear v. Locklear, 92 N.C.App. 299 , 374 S.E.2d 406 (1988), review allowed, 324 N.C. 336 , 378 S.E.2d 794 (1989); Cobb v. Cobb, 107 N.C.App. 382 , 420 S.E.2d 212 (1992). 1994Locklear v. Locklear, 92 N.C.App. 299 , 374 S.E.2d 406 (1988), review allowed, 324 N.C. 336 , 378 S.E.2d 794 (1989); Cobb v. Cobb, 107 N.C.App. 382 , 420 S.E.2d 212 (1992). | 1 | 1994–1994 |
White v. White
green
2 sentences1992When evidence is presented from which a reasonable finder of fact could determine that an equal division would be inequitable, the trial court is required to consider the distributional factors set forth in N.C.G.S. § 50-20(c), “but guided always by the public policy expressed ... [in the Act] favoring an equal division.” White v. White, 312 N.C. 770 , 324 S.E.2d 829 (1985). 1992When evidence is presented from which a reasonable finder of fact could determine that an equal division would be inequitable, the trial court is required to consider the distributional factors set forth in N.C.G.S. § 50-20(c), “but guided always by the public policy expressed ... [in the Act] favoring an equal division.” White v. White, 312 N.C. 770 , 324 S.E.2d 829 (1985). | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Miller v. Miller
green
1 sentence1990Miller v. Miller, 97 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.