13 North Carolina opinions name it 1 courts 2008–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Dogwood Development & Management Co. LLC v. White Oak Transport Co.green2 sentences2025While “only in the most egregious instances of nonjurisdictional default will dismissal of the appeal be appropriate[,]” id. at 200 , 657 S.E.2d at 366 (citations omitted), “in certain instances noncompliance with a discrete requirement of the rules may constitute a default precluding substantive review.” Id. (citing N.C.R. 2025“The court may also consider the number of rules violated, although in certain instances noncompliance with a discrete requirement of the rules may constitute a default precluding substantive review.” Id. at 200 ; see, e.g., N.C.R. | 4 | 13 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in North Carolina. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
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.