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.
15 North Carolina opinions name it 1 courts 1996–2021 4 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 |
|---|---|---|
Warren v. North Carolina Department of Crime Control & Public Safetygreen2 sentences2018Thus, the final prong of the Warren test requires us to "balance the equities" by "examin[ing] the facts and circumstances of [the] case" in order to determine whether the "conduct constitutes just cause for the [specific type of] disciplinary action taken." Id. at 379, 382 , 726 S.E.2d at 923 , 925 . 2018Thus, the final prong of the Warren test requires us to "balance the equities" by "examin[ing] the facts and circumstances of [the] case" in order to determine whether the "conduct constitutes just cause for the [specific type of] disciplinary action taken." Id. at 379, 382 , 726 S.E.2d at 923 , 925 . | 3 | 6 |
Whitehurst v. East Carolina Univ.green2 sentences2021See Whitehurst, 257 N.C. 2021See Whitehurst, 257 N.C. | 2 | 2 |
Hilliard v. North Carolina Department of Correctiongreen2 sentences2021Thus, using Petitioner’s definition, the undisputed facts show Petitioner falsified a work related document. ¶ 21 The falsification basis alone would be enough for Petitioner to fail on the second Warren inquiry because “[o]ne act of [unacceptable personal conduct] presents ‘just cause’ for any discipline, up to and including dismissal.” Hilliard v. North Carolina Dept. of Correction, 173 N.C. 2021Thus, using Petitioner’s definition, the undisputed facts show Petitioner falsified a work related document. ¶ 21 The falsification basis alone would be enough for Petitioner to fail on the second Warren inquiry because “[o]ne act of [unacceptable personal conduct] presents ‘just cause’ for any discipline, up to and including dismissal.” Hilliard v. North Carolina Dept. of Correction, 173 N.C. | 2 | 2 |
| 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. N.C. Dep't of Pub. Instruction
green
2 sentences2021Accordingly, the first prong of the Warren test is satisfied . . . .” Id., 261 N.C. 2021Accordingly, the first prong of the Warren test is satisfied . . . .” Id., 261 N.C. | 2 | 2021–2021 |
Koufman v. Koufman
green
2 sentences2021Accordingly, the first prong of the Warren test is satisfied . . . .” Id., 261 N.C. 2021Accordingly, the first prong of the Warren test is satisfied . . . .” Id., 261 N.C. | 2 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Warren
green
2 sentences2020Several years later, in State v. Warren, 313 N.C. 254 , 328 S.E.2d 256 (1985), the Court elaborated upon the language above, and set forth what we will call the “Warren exception”: If a defendant shows that the prosecution withheld indictment on additional charges solely in order to circumvent the statutory joinder requirements, the defendant is entitled under [N.C. 2020Several years later, in State v. Warren, 313 N.C. 254 , 328 S.E.2d 256 (1985), the Court elaborated upon the language above, and set forth what we will call the “Warren exception”: If a defendant shows that the prosecution withheld indictment on additional charges solely in order to circumvent the statutory joinder requirements, the defendant is entitled under [N.C. | 2 | 2020–2020 |
Harris v. N.C. Dep't of Pub. Safety
green
2 sentences2020Harris, 252 N.C. 2020Harris, 252 N.C. | 2 | 2020–2020 |
Blackburn v. N.C. Dep't of Pub. Safety
green
2 sentences2019The purpose of requiring a specific allegation of the conduct alleged to support disciplinary action is to provide the employee with “a sufficiently particular description of the incidents [supporting disciplinary action] . . . so that the discharged employee will know precisely what acts or omissions were the basis of [her] discharge.” Blackburn, 246 N.C. 2019The purpose of requiring a specific allegation of the conduct alleged to support disciplinary action is to provide the employee with “a sufficiently particular description of the incidents [supporting disciplinary action] . . . so that the discharged employee will know precisely what acts or omissions were the basis of [her] discharge.” Blackburn, 246 N.C. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
North Carolina Department of Environment & Natural Resources v. Carroll
green
2 sentences2017Dep’t of Env’t & Natural Res. v. Carroll, 358 N.C. 649 , 599 S.E.2d 888 (2004), and is useful in the just cause analysis. 8 HARRIS V. 2017Dep’t of Env’t & Natural Res. v. Carroll, 358 N.C. 649 , 599 S.E.2d 888 (2004), and is useful in the just cause analysis. 8 HARRIS V. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Northern National Life Insurance v. Lacy J. Miller MacHine Co.
green
1 sentence2017The three correctional officers present at the scene, and tasked with removing Walls from his cell, testified as to Petitioner’s actions, and their effect on Walls. 3 Although our Supreme Court is not bound by Warren’s three-prong analysis, see, e.g., Northern Nat’l Life Ins. v. Miller Machine Co., 311 N.C. 62, 76 , 316 S.E.22d 256, 265 (1984), Warren’s analysis is a helpful conceptualization of N.C. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Bolton Corp. v. T. A. Loving Co.
green
2 sentences1996Thus, "[i]f a subcontractor were to cause injury to a contractor other than its prime, the other contractor would have an action in contract against the subcontractor's prime." Id. at 408-09, 380 S.E.2d at 806-07 . 1996Thus, "[i]f a subcontractor were to cause injury to a contractor other than its prime, the other contractor would have an action in contract against the subcontractor's prime." Id. at 408-09, 380 S.E.2d at 806-07 . | 1 | 1996–1996 |
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.