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.
13 North Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1892–2012 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. . Dixongreen2 sentences1951See State v. Dixon, 75 N.C. 275 ." In State v. Blevins, 138 N.C. 668 , at page 670, 50 S.E. 763 , at page 764, with Hoke, J., speaking for the Court, it is stated: "* * * that where a man is without fault, and a murderous assault is made upon him—an assault with intent to kill—he is not required to retreat, but may stand his ground, and if he kill his assailant, and it is necessary to do so in order to save his *501 own life or protect his person from great bodily harm, it is excusable homicide, and will be so held * * *; this necessity, real or apparent, to be determined by the jury on the fa 1951See State v. Dixon, 75 N.C. 275 ." In State v. Blevins, 138 N.C. 668 , at page 670, 50 S.E. 763 , at page 764, with Hoke, J., speaking for the Court, it is stated: "* * * that where a man is without fault, and a murderous assault is made upon him—an assault with intent to kill—he is not required to retreat, but may stand his ground, and if he kill his assailant, and it is necessary to do so in order to save his *501 own life or protect his person from great bodily harm, it is excusable homicide, and will be so held * * *; this necessity, real or apparent, to be determined by the jury on the fa | 3 | 3 |
Stephenson v. Bartlettgreen2 sentences2012This general rule is known as the “American rule.” Stephenson v. Bartlett, 177 N.C. 2012App. 239, 244 , 628 S.E.2d 442, 445 (2006). | 1 | 1 |
State Board of Tax Commissioners v. Town of St. Johngreen2 sentences2006See also State Bd. of Tax Comm’rs, 751 N.E.2d at 661-64 (rejecting adoption of the private attorney general doctrine where the Indiana General Assembly had created statutory exceptions to the American rule and had observed prudential considerations such as the possible attraction of “bounty hunters” in public interest litigation, as well as difficult and subjective determinations by courts as to whether private enforcement was necessary, whether the action was a burden, whether and in what amount a fee was appropriate, and whether a significant number of citizens benefitted irrespective of whe 2006See also State Bd. of Tax Comm’rs, 751 N.E.2d at 661-64 (rejecting adoption of the private attorney general doctrine where the Indiana General Assembly had created statutory exceptions to the American rule and had observed prudential considerations such as the possible attraction of “bounty hunters” in public interest litigation, as well as difficult and subjective determinations by courts as to whether private enforcement was necessary, whether the action was a burden, whether and in what amount a fee was appropriate, and whether a significant number of citizens benefitted irrespective of whe | 1 | 1 |
City of Charlotte v. McNeelygreen2 sentences2006Our own Supreme Court has unequivocally noted that “all costs are given in a court of law in virtue of some statute [,] [and the] simple but definitive statement of the rule is: [C]osts in this State are *245 entirely creatures of legislation, and without this they do not exist.” City of Charlotte v. McNeely, 281 N.C. 684, 691 , 190 S.E.2d 179, 185 (1972) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). 2006Our own Supreme Court has unequivocally noted that “all costs are given in a court of law in virtue of some statute [,] [and the] simple but definitive statement of the rule is: [C]osts in this State are *245 entirely creatures of legislation, and without this they do not exist.” City of Charlotte v. McNeely, 281 N.C. 684, 691 , 190 S.E.2d 179, 185 (1972) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Pugh v. . Wheelergreen1 sentence1977This Court therefore adopted the “American rule” or rule of reasonable use that a “riparian proprietor is entitled to the natural flow of a stream running through or along his land in its accustomed channel, undiminished in quantity and unimpaired in quality, except as may be occasioned by the reasonable use of the water by other like proprietors.” Smith v. Morganton, 187 N.C. 801 , 123 S.E. 88 (1924); accord, Pugh v. Wheeler, 19 N.C. 50 (1836). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Blevins.green2 sentences1951See State v. Dixon, 75 N.C. 275 ." In State v. Blevins, 138 N.C. 668 , at page 670, 50 S.E. 763 , at page 764, with Hoke, J., speaking for the Court, it is stated: "* * * that where a man is without fault, and a murderous assault is made upon him—an assault with intent to kill—he is not required to retreat, but may stand his ground, and if he kill his assailant, and it is necessary to do so in order to save his *501 own life or protect his person from great bodily harm, it is excusable homicide, and will be so held * * *; this necessity, real or apparent, to be determined by the jury on the fa 1951See State v. Dixon, 75 N.C. 275 ." In State v. Blevins, 138 N.C. 668 , at page 670, 50 S.E. 763 , at page 764, with Hoke, J., speaking for the Court, it is stated: "* * * that where a man is without fault, and a murderous assault is made upon him—an assault with intent to kill—he is not required to retreat, but may stand his ground, and if he kill his assailant, and it is necessary to do so in order to save his *501 own life or protect his person from great bodily harm, it is excusable homicide, and will be so held * * *; this necessity, real or apparent, to be determined by the jury on the fa | 1 | 1 |
State v. . Glenngreen2 sentences1938See S. v. Dixon, 75 N. C., 275 .” S. v. Glenn, 198 N. C., 79 , 150 S. E., 663 . 1938See S. v. Dixon, 75 N. C., 275 .” S. v. Glenn, 198 N. C., 79 , 150 S. E., 663 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Hough.green2 sentences1929See S. v. Hough, 138 N. C., 665 , 50 S. E., 709 , and S. v. Dixon, 75 N. C., 275 . 1929See S. v. Hough, 138 N. C., 665 , 50 S. E., 709 , and S. v. Dixon, 75 N. C., 275 . | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Mangiante v. Niemiec
green
2 sentences2012In Mangiante v. Niemiec, 910 A.2d 235 (Conn. App. Ct. 2006), the Appellate Court of Connecticut noted that “Connecticut generally follows the American rule with regard to attorney’s fees.” Id. at 238 . 2012In Mangiante v. Niemiec, 910 A.2d 235 (Conn. App. Ct. 2006), the Appellate Court of Connecticut noted that “Connecticut generally follows the American rule with regard to attorney’s fees.” Id. at 238 . | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Carrier v. Starnes
green
2 sentences2005The trial court did not err in sustaining American's objection to this evidence, as this ruling did not lack for any basis in reason, nor was it "so arbitrary that it could not have *440 been the result of a reasoned decision." Carrier, 120 N.C.App. at 520 , 463 S.E.2d at 397 . 2005The trial court did not err in sustaining American's objection to this evidence, as this ruling did not lack for any basis in reason, nor was it "so arbitrary that it could not have *440 been the result of a reasoned decision." Carrier, 120 N.C.App. at 520 , 463 S.E.2d at 397 . | 1 | 2005–2005 |
James Depass v. United States
green
2 sentences1985See Downie v. United States Lines Co., supra (Kalodner, C.J., dissenting); DePass v. United States, 721 F. 2d 203 (7th Cir. 1983) (Posner, J., dissenting). 1985See Downie v. United States Lines Co., supra (Kalodner, C.J., dissenting); DePass v. United States, 721 F. 2d 203 (7th Cir. 1983) (Posner, J., dissenting). | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Dunlap v. Carolina Power & Light Co.
green
2 sentences1977This rule was expounded upon in Dunlap v. Light Co., 212 N.C. 814 , 195 S.E. 43 (1938). 1977This rule was expounded upon in Dunlap v. Light Co., 212 N.C. 814 , 195 S.E. 43 (1938). | 1 | 1977–1977 |
Connoe v. Suncrest Lumber Co.
green
1 sentence1977This Court therefore adopted the “American rule” or rule of reasonable use that a “riparian proprietor is entitled to the natural flow of a stream running through or along his land in its accustomed channel, undiminished in quantity and unimpaired in quality, except as may be occasioned by the reasonable use of the water by other like proprietors.” Smith v. Morganton, 187 N.C. 801 , 123 S.E. 88 (1924); accord, Pugh v. Wheeler, 19 N.C. 50 (1836). | 1 | 1977–1977 |
Smith v. Town of Morganton
neutral
1 sentence1977This Court therefore adopted the “American rule” or rule of reasonable use that a “riparian proprietor is entitled to the natural flow of a stream running through or along his land in its accustomed channel, undiminished in quantity and unimpaired in quality, except as may be occasioned by the reasonable use of the water by other like proprietors.” Smith v. Morganton, 187 N.C. 801 , 123 S.E. 88 (1924); accord, Pugh v. Wheeler, 19 N.C. 50 (1836). | 1 | 1977–1977 |
Sloss-Sheffield Steel & Iron Co. v. Wilkes
green
2 sentences1962In Bouse v. City of Kinston, supra, the Court said: “We think the American rule, adopted in most of the States where this question has arisen, the ‘reasonable use’ of percolating water, the correct rule.” A clear and accurate statement of the American rule of “reasonable use” is set forth in Sloss-Sheffield Steel and Iron Co. v. Wilkes, 231 Ala. 511 , 165 So. 764 , 109 A.L.R. 385 , reaffirmed on subsequent appeal 236 Ala. 173 , 181 So. 276 : “But this early rule of the common law has given way to the doctrine of ‘reasonable use,’ by which the landowner is said to have the right only to a reaso 1962In Bouse v. City of Kinston, supra, the Court said: “We think the American rule, adopted in most of the States where this question has arisen, the ‘reasonable use’ of percolating water, the correct rule.” A clear and accurate statement of the American rule of “reasonable use” is set forth in Sloss-Sheffield Steel and Iron Co. v. Wilkes, 231 Ala. 511 , 165 So. 764 , 109 A.L.R. 385 , reaffirmed on subsequent appeal 236 Ala. 173 , 181 So. 276 : “But this early rule of the common law has given way to the doctrine of ‘reasonable use,’ by which the landowner is said to have the right only to a reaso | 1 | 1962–1962 |
Sloss-Sheffield Steel & Iron Co. v. Wilkes
green
2 sentences1962In Bouse v. City of Kinston, supra, the Court said: “We think the American rule, adopted in most of the States where this question has arisen, the ‘reasonable use’ of percolating water, the correct rule.” A clear and accurate statement of the American rule of “reasonable use” is set forth in Sloss-Sheffield Steel and Iron Co. v. Wilkes, 231 Ala. 511 , 165 So. 764 , 109 A.L.R. 385 , reaffirmed on subsequent appeal 236 Ala. 173 , 181 So. 276 : “But this early rule of the common law has given way to the doctrine of ‘reasonable use,’ by which the landowner is said to have the right only to a reaso 1962In Bouse v. City of Kinston, supra, the Court said: “We think the American rule, adopted in most of the States where this question has arisen, the ‘reasonable use’ of percolating water, the correct rule.” A clear and accurate statement of the American rule of “reasonable use” is set forth in Sloss-Sheffield Steel and Iron Co. v. Wilkes, 231 Ala. 511 , 165 So. 764 , 109 A.L.R. 385 , reaffirmed on subsequent appeal 236 Ala. 173 , 181 So. 276 : “But this early rule of the common law has given way to the doctrine of ‘reasonable use,’ by which the landowner is said to have the right only to a reaso | 1 | 1962–1962 |
Commonwealth v. Wright
neutral
2 sentences1961The Court reversed the lower court on authority of Reyes v. State, supra. In Thomas v. State, 103 Ind. 419 , 2 N.E. 808 , the Court said: “It has been many times held, and it seems to be now the general American doctrine, that in a case like this the obscene book or paper need not be set out in the indictment if it be properly described, and the indictment contains the averments that it is so obscene that it would be offensive to the court, and improper to be placed on the records thereof, and that, therefore, the grand jury did not set it forth in the indictment.” Commonwealth v. Wright, 139 1961The Court reversed the lower court on authority of Reyes v. State, supra. In Thomas v. State, 103 Ind. 419 , 2 N.E. 808 , the Court said: “It has been many times held, and it seems to be now the general American doctrine, that in a case like this the obscene book or paper need not be set out in the indictment if it be properly described, and the indictment contains the averments that it is so obscene that it would be offensive to the court, and improper to be placed on the records thereof, and that, therefore, the grand jury did not set it forth in the indictment.” Commonwealth v. Wright, 139 | 1 | 1961–1961 |
Thomas v. State
green
2 sentences1961The Court reversed the lower court on authority of Reyes v. State, supra. In Thomas v. State, 103 Ind. 419 , 2 N.E. 808 , the Court said: “It has been many times held, and it seems to be now the general American doctrine, that in a case like this the obscene book or paper need not be set out in the indictment if it be properly described, and the indictment contains the averments that it is so obscene that it would be offensive to the court, and improper to be placed on the records thereof, and that, therefore, the grand jury did not set it forth in the indictment.” Commonwealth v. Wright, 139 1961The Court reversed the lower court on authority of Reyes v. State, supra. In Thomas v. State, 103 Ind. 419 , 2 N.E. 808 , the Court said: “It has been many times held, and it seems to be now the general American doctrine, that in a case like this the obscene book or paper need not be set out in the indictment if it be properly described, and the indictment contains the averments that it is so obscene that it would be offensive to the court, and improper to be placed on the records thereof, and that, therefore, the grand jury did not set it forth in the indictment.” Commonwealth v. Wright, 139 | 1 | 1961–1961 |
Shelfer v. . Gooding
green
1 sentence1956In the case of Shelfer v. Gooding, 47 N.C. 175 , this Court said: “To make the aid (of counsel) effective, great latitude must necessarily be allowed to counsel, not only in the examination and cross-examination of the witnesses, but in commenting on their testimony and their demeanor in giving it. | 1 | 1956–1956 |
State v. . Bost
neutral
2 sentences1951See State v. Dixon, 75 N.C. 275 ." In State v. Blevins, 138 N.C. 668 , at page 670, 50 S.E. 763 , at page 764, with Hoke, J., speaking for the Court, it is stated: "* * * that where a man is without fault, and a murderous assault is made upon him—an assault with intent to kill—he is not required to retreat, but may stand his ground, and if he kill his assailant, and it is necessary to do so in order to save his *501 own life or protect his person from great bodily harm, it is excusable homicide, and will be so held * * *; this necessity, real or apparent, to be determined by the jury on the fa 1951See State v. Dixon, 75 N.C. 275 ." In State v. Blevins, 138 N.C. 668 , at page 670, 50 S.E. 763 , at page 764, with Hoke, J., speaking for the Court, it is stated: "* * * that where a man is without fault, and a murderous assault is made upon him—an assault with intent to kill—he is not required to retreat, but may stand his ground, and if he kill his assailant, and it is necessary to do so in order to save his *501 own life or protect his person from great bodily harm, it is excusable homicide, and will be so held * * *; this necessity, real or apparent, to be determined by the jury on the fa | 1 | 1951–1951 |
State v. . Harris
neutral
2 sentences1951See State v. Dixon, 75 N.C. 275 ." In State v. Blevins, 138 N.C. 668 , at page 670, 50 S.E. 763 , at page 764, with Hoke, J., speaking for the Court, it is stated: "* * * that where a man is without fault, and a murderous assault is made upon him—an assault with intent to kill—he is not required to retreat, but may stand his ground, and if he kill his assailant, and it is necessary to do so in order to save his *501 own life or protect his person from great bodily harm, it is excusable homicide, and will be so held * * *; this necessity, real or apparent, to be determined by the jury on the fa 1951See State v. Dixon, 75 N.C. 275 ." In State v. Blevins, 138 N.C. 668 , at page 670, 50 S.E. 763 , at page 764, with Hoke, J., speaking for the Court, it is stated: "* * * that where a man is without fault, and a murderous assault is made upon him—an assault with intent to kill—he is not required to retreat, but may stand his ground, and if he kill his assailant, and it is necessary to do so in order to save his *501 own life or protect his person from great bodily harm, it is excusable homicide, and will be so held * * *; this necessity, real or apparent, to be determined by the jury on the fa | 1 | 1951–1951 |
State v. . Thornton
green
2 sentences1951See State v. Dixon, 75 N.C. 275 ." In State v. Blevins, 138 N.C. 668 , at page 670, 50 S.E. 763 , at page 764, with Hoke, J., speaking for the Court, it is stated: "* * * that where a man is without fault, and a murderous assault is made upon him—an assault with intent to kill—he is not required to retreat, but may stand his ground, and if he kill his assailant, and it is necessary to do so in order to save his *501 own life or protect his person from great bodily harm, it is excusable homicide, and will be so held * * *; this necessity, real or apparent, to be determined by the jury on the fa 1951See State v. Dixon, 75 N.C. 275 ." In State v. Blevins, 138 N.C. 668 , at page 670, 50 S.E. 763 , at page 764, with Hoke, J., speaking for the Court, it is stated: "* * * that where a man is without fault, and a murderous assault is made upon him—an assault with intent to kill—he is not required to retreat, but may stand his ground, and if he kill his assailant, and it is necessary to do so in order to save his *501 own life or protect his person from great bodily harm, it is excusable homicide, and will be so held * * *; this necessity, real or apparent, to be determined by the jury on the fa | 1 | 1951–1951 |
Marshall Foundry Co. v. . Killian
neutral
2 sentences1936Foundry Co. v. Killian, supra. “Statutes making stockholders individually liable to creditors create a right flowing directly from the stockholder to creditors.” Thomp. 1936Foundry Co. v. Killian, supra . | 1 | 1936–1936 |
Augusta Factory v. Barnes
green
2 sentences1892Augusta Factory v. Barnes , 72 Ga. 217 ; Dowling v. Allen , 74 Mo., 13 ; Chicago v. May , 108 Ill. 288 ; Chicago v. Lundstron , 16 Neb. 254 ; R. 1892Augusta Factory v. Barnes , 72 Ga. 217 ; Dowling v. Allen , 74 Mo., 13 ; Chicago v. May , 108 Ill. 288 ; Chicago v. Lundstron , 16 Neb. 254 ; R. | 1 | 1892–1892 |
Dowling v. Gerard B. Allen & Co.
green
2 sentences1892Augusta Factory v. Barnes , 72 Ga. 217 ; Dowling v. Allen , 74 Mo., 13 ; Chicago v. May , 108 Ill. 288 ; Chicago v. Lundstron , 16 Neb. 254 ; R. 1892Augusta Factory v. Barnes , 72 Ga. 217 ; Dowling v. Allen , 74 Mo., 13 ; Chicago v. May , 108 Ill. 288 ; Chicago v. Lundstron , 16 Neb. 254 ; R. | 1 | 1892–1892 |
Chicago, Saint Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railway Co. v. Lundstrom
neutral
2 sentences1892Augusta Factory v. Barnes , 72 Ga. 217 ; Dowling v. Allen , 74 Mo., 13 ; Chicago v. May , 108 Ill. 288 ; Chicago v. Lundstron , 16 Neb. 254 ; R. 1892Augusta Factory v. Barnes , 72 Ga. 217 ; Dowling v. Allen , 74 Mo., 13 ; Chicago v. May , 108 Ill. 288 ; Chicago v. Lundstron , 16 Neb. 254 ; R. | 1 | 1892–1892 |
Chicago & Alton Railroad v. May
green
2 sentences1892Augusta Factory v. Barnes , 72 Ga. 217 ; Dowling v. Allen , 74 Mo., 13 ; Chicago v. May , 108 Ill. 288 ; Chicago v. Lundstron , 16 Neb. 254 ; R. 1892Augusta Factory v. Barnes , 72 Ga. 217 ; Dowling v. Allen , 74 Mo., 13 ; Chicago v. May , 108 Ill. 288 ; Chicago v. Lundstron , 16 Neb. 254 ; R. | 1 | 1892–1892 |
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.