13 North Carolina opinions name it 1 courts 1993–2016 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 |
|---|---|---|
Amanini v. N.C. Department of Human Resourcesgreen2 sentences2004App. 668, 677 , 443 S.E.2d 114, 118 (1994), this Court noted that “where the initial reviewing court should have conducted de novo review, this Court will directly *616 review the State Personnel Commission’s decision under a de novo review standard.” More recently, we articulated this same principle in Davis v. N.C. 2002App. 668, 675 , 443 S.E.2d 114, 118 (1994). “[W]here the initial reviewing court should have conducted de novo review, this Court will directly review the State Personnel Commission’s decision under a de novo review standard.” Id. at 677 , 443 S.E.2d at 119 . | 4 | 5 |
Matter of McCrarygreen2 sentences2002App. 161, 165 , 435 S.E.2d 359, 363 (1993) (“Where the trial court should have utilized de novo review, this Court will directly review the agency’s decision under a de novo review standard[]”). 2001Therefore, “where the trial court should have utilized de novo review, this Court will directly review the agency’s decision under a de novo review standard.” In re Appeal by McCrary, 112 N.C. | 2 | 4 |
Brooks v. Rebarco, Inc.green2 sentences1998Dept. of Human Resources, 114 N.C.App. 668, 674 , 443 S.E.2d 114, 118 (1994) ("If [petitioner] argues the agency's decision was based on an error of law, then `de novo ` review is required."); Brooks, Com'r of Labor v. Rebarco, Inc., 91 N.C.App. 459, 464 , 372 S.E.2d 342, 345 (1988) ("Incorrect statutory interpretation by an agency constitutes an error of law...."). "[W]here the initial reviewing court should have conducted de novo review, this Court will directly review the [agency's] decision under a de novo review standard." Amanini , 114 N.C.App. at 677 , 443 S.E.2d at 119 ; Brooks, Comr. 1998Dept. of Human Resources, 114 N.C.App. 668, 674 , 443 S.E.2d 114, 118 (1994) ("If [petitioner] argues the agency's decision was based on an error of law, then `de novo ` review is required."); Brooks, Com'r of Labor v. Rebarco, Inc., 91 N.C.App. 459, 464 , 372 S.E.2d 342, 345 (1988) ("Incorrect statutory interpretation by an agency constitutes an error of law...."). "[W]here the initial reviewing court should have conducted de novo review, this Court will directly review the [agency's] decision under a de novo review standard." Amanini , 114 N.C.App. at 677 , 443 S.E.2d at 119 ; Brooks, Comr. | 2 | 4 |
Skinner v. North Carolina Department of Correctiongreen2 sentences2016Dep't of Corr., 154 N.C.App. 270 , 279, 572 S.E.2d 184 , 191 (2002) ( "[W]here the initial reviewing court should have conducted de novo *374 review, this Court will directly review the [agency's] decision under a de novo review standard."). 2016Dep't of Corr., 154 N.C.App. 270 , 279, 572 S.E.2d 184 , 191 (2002) ( "[W]here the initial reviewing court should have conducted de novo *374 review, this Court will directly review the [agency's] decision under a de novo review standard."). | 1 | 1 |
Brooks v. McWhirter Grading Co., Inc.green2 sentences1998Dept. of Human Resources, 114 N.C.App. 668, 674 , 443 S.E.2d 114, 118 (1994) ("If [petitioner] argues the agency's decision was based on an error of law, then `de novo ` review is required."); Brooks, Com'r of Labor v. Rebarco, Inc., 91 N.C.App. 459, 464 , 372 S.E.2d 342, 345 (1988) ("Incorrect statutory interpretation by an agency constitutes an error of law...."). "[W]here the initial reviewing court should have conducted de novo review, this Court will directly review the [agency's] decision under a de novo review standard." Amanini , 114 N.C.App. at 677 , 443 S.E.2d at 119 ; Brooks, Comr. 1998App. at 677 , 443 S.E.2d at 119 ; Brooks, Comr. of Labor v. Grading Co., 303 N.C. 573, 580-81 , 281 S.E.2d 24, 29 (1981) (“When the issue on appeal is wheth- • er a state agency erred in interpreting a statutory term, an appellate court may freely substitute its judgment for that of the agency and employ de novo review.”). | 1 | 1 |
JWA v. State of Ga.green1 sentence1998Dept. of Human Resources, 114 N.C.App. 668, 674 , 443 S.E.2d 114, 118 (1994) ("If [petitioner] argues the agency's decision was based on an error of law, then `de novo ` review is required."); Brooks, Com'r of Labor v. Rebarco, Inc., 91 N.C.App. 459, 464 , 372 S.E.2d 342, 345 (1988) ("Incorrect statutory interpretation by an agency constitutes an error of law...."). "[W]here the initial reviewing court should have conducted de novo review, this Court will directly review the [agency's] decision under a de novo review standard." Amanini , 114 N.C.App. at 677 , 443 S.E.2d at 119 ; Brooks, Comr. | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Souther v. New River Area Mental Health Development Disabilities & Substance Abuse Program
green
1 sentence2002As noted above, a trial court’s “determination of whether a termination [or demotion] was for ‘just cause’ based upon personal misconduct is a question of law, and [] questions of law are to be reviewed de novo." Souther v. New River Area Mental Health, 142 N.C. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
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.