agreement bar (North Carolina) · Go Syfert
← North Carolina issues

agreement bar in North Carolina

13 North Carolina opinions name it 3 courts 1922–2014 0 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 (5)

CaseFollowedCited
Redevelopment Com'n of Greenville v. Hannafordgreen
ncctapp · 1976 · cited in 1 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2014–2014
1 sentence

2014See, e.g., Redevelopment Com’n of Greenville v. Hannaford, 29 N.C.

11
Turner v. Masiasgreen
ncctapp · 1978 · cited in 1 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2011–2011
1 sentence

2011App. 213, 217 , 243 S.E.2d 401, 404 (1978).” We hold that if the Agreement requires automatic and complete closure of the proceedings in this matter, then the Agreement is in violation of public policy — the qualified public right of access to civil court proceedings guaranteed by Article I, Section 18.

11
Gleason v. Leadership Housing, Inc.green
fladistctapp · 1976 · cited in 1 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2009–2009
1 sentence

2009The appellate court “assum[ed] for the purpose of [its] decision that the agreement was; in fact, in violation of the Statute of Frauds” and held that the developer was “estopped to contest the validity of the agreement under the doctrine of equitable estoppel.” Id. at 104.

11
Stegall v. Stegallgreen
ncctapp · 1990 · cited in 1 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 1999–1999
1 sentence

1999See Stegall v. Stegall, 100 N.C.

11
Carolina Mills Lumber Co. v. Huffmangreen
ncctapp · 1989 · cited in 1 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 1991–1991
1 sentence

1991See, Howell v. Landry, 96 N.C.

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

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

Also cited on this issue (11)

CaseCitedYears
Howell v. Landry green
ncctapp · 1989
1 sentence

2008Id. (citing Howell, 96 N.C.

12008–2008
Prevatte v. Prevatte green
ncctapp · 1991
1 sentence

2008Id. (citing Howell, 96 N.C.

12008–2008
Blount v. Blount green
ncctapp · 1984
1 sentence

1986Id.

11986–1986
Britt v. Allen neutral
ncctapp · 1974
1 sentence

1975This case was reviewed on appeal by this Court in 21 N.C.

11975–1975
Bailey v. Bailey. neutral
nc · 1900
2 sentences

1961Bailey v. Bailey, *194 127 N.C. 474 , 37 S.E. 502 ; 26 Am.

1961Bailey v. Bailey, *194 127 N.C. 474 , 37 S.E. 502 ; 26 Am.

11961–1961
Winders v. Hill. green
nc · 1906
2 sentences

1930Michael v. Foil , 100 N.C. 178 , 191 ; Winders v. Hill , 141 N.C. 694 , 704 .

1930Michael v. Foil, 100 N. C., 178, 191 ; Winders v. Hill, 141 N. C., 694, 704 .

11930–1930
Michael v. . Foil green
· 1888
2 sentences

1930Michael v. Foil , 100 N.C. 178 , 191 ; Winders v. Hill , 141 N.C. 694 , 704 .

1930Michael v. Foil, 100 N. C., 178, 191 ; Winders v. Hill, 141 N. C., 694, 704 .

11930–1930
Phosphate Co. v. . Johnson green
nc · 1924
1 sentence

1926In Phosphate Co. v. Johnson, 188 N. C., 419 , we approved the principle, as applicable to these statutes, that if an act is prohibited by statute, an agreement in violation of the statute is void, although the act is not penalized, for it is the prohibition, and not the penalty, which makes the act illegal.

11926–1926
Smithfield Improvement Co. v. Coley-Bardin neutral
nc · 1911
1 sentence

1925Improvement Co. v. Coley-Bardin, supra. To forestall the lessor’s liability in case it caused damage to the leased premises by flood or otherwise, there was inserted in the agreement a clause exempting it from such liability by releasing all claims and damages, growing out of the ponding of the water or the construction, maintenance, or operation of the dams.

11925–1925
Dunbar v. Dunbar green
mass · 1901
1 sentence

1922Dunbar v. Dunbar, 180 Mass., 170 ; Dickerson v. Dickerson, 19 Ga. App., 269 ; 6 R.

11922–1922
Dickerson v. Dickerson green
gactapp · 1917
1 sentence

1922Dunbar v. Dunbar, 180 Mass., 170 ; Dickerson v. Dickerson, 19 Ga. App., 269 ; 6 R.

11922–1922

Statutes the citing opinions construe

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

NY 98 (1885–2026) TX 85 (1912–2026) CA 71 (1902–2024) IL 49 (1917–2025) GA 37 (1939–2026) PA 35 (1811–2023) MI 26 (1941–2023) FL 18 (1903–2021) MD 17 (1977–2022) OH 17 (1941–2025) CT 16 (1982–2024) MO 16 (1865–2024) AZ 15 (1977–2026) MA 15 (1862–2018) WA 15 (2004–2025) NC 13 (1922–2014) DE 12 (1989–2024) NE 11 (1928–2015) VA 11 (1913–2025) IN 11 (1839–2007) NJ 11 (1949–2022) OR 10 (1894–2022) WI 9 (1902–2020) NM 8 (1990–2024) OK 8 (1930–2002) AL 8 (1906–2026) WY 8 (1975–2020) MS 7 (1943–2021) LA 7 (1931–2017) TN 7 (1953–2024) WV 6 (1890–2017) MT 6 (1906–1997) NV 5 (1882–2020) SD 5 (1977–2026) IA 5 (1890–2018) MN 5 (1867–2024) RI 5 (1985–2026) SC 4 (1983–2020) ME 4 (1957–2010) ID 4 (1927–2023) VT 3 (1997–2022) KS 3 (1912–1993) AR 2 (1918–1928) CO 2 (1984–1991) HI 2 (1939–2009) DC 2 (2009–2021) KY 2 (1933–1952)

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