13 North Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1951–2024 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co.green2 sentences2009Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314 , 70 S.Ct. 652 , 94 L.Ed. 865 , 873 (1950) ("An elementary and fundamental requirement of due process in any proceeding which is to be accorded finality is notice reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections." (citations omitted)). 2009Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314 , 70 S.Ct. 652 , 94 L.Ed. 865 , 873 (1950) ("An elementary and fundamental requirement of due process in any proceeding which is to be accorded finality is notice reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections." (citations omitted)). | 3 | 12 |
McLean v. McLeangreen2 sentences2024“An elementary and fundamental requirement of due process in any proceeding which is to be accorded finality is notice reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections.” McLean v. McLean, 233 N.C. 139, 146 (1951) (quoting Mullane v. Cent. 1977See also: Chadbourn, Inc. v. Katz, 285 N.C. 700 , 208 S.E. 2d 676 (1974); McLean v. McLean, 233 N.C. 139 , 63 S.E. 2d 138 *369 (1951); Huggins v. DeMent, 13 N.C. | 2 | 2 |
Matter of Arendsgreen2 sentences2008Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314 , 70 S.Ct. 652, 657 , 94 L.Ed. 865 , 873 (1950) ("An elementary and fundamental requirement of due process in any proceeding which is to be accorded finality is notice reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections."); see also In the Matter of Arends, 88 N.C.App. at 555 , 364 S.E.2d at 172 ("[T]he failure to serve [respondent-father] with notice of the neglect and dependency proceedings raises the question of whether the father has been deprived of 2008Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314 , 70 S.Ct. 652, 657 , 94 L.Ed. 865 , 873 (1950) ("An elementary and fundamental requirement of due process in any proceeding which is to be accorded finality is notice reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections."); see also In the Matter of Arends, 88 N.C.App. at 555 , 364 S.E.2d at 172 ("[T]he failure to serve [respondent-father] with notice of the neglect and dependency proceedings raises the question of whether the father has been deprived of | 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 |
|---|---|---|
City of Randleman v. Hinshaw
green
1 sentence1988“An elementary and fundamental requirement of due process in any proceeding is notice reasonably calculated, under all circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections.” Randleman, supra, at 140 , 147 S.E. 2d at 905 , citing, Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 , 70 S.Ct. 652 , 94 L.Ed. 865 (1950). | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Huggins v. Dement
neutral
1 sentence1977See also: Chadbourn, Inc. v. Katz, 285 N.C. 700 , 208 S.E. 2d 676 (1974); McLean v. McLean, 233 N.C. 139 , 63 S.E. 2d 138 *369 (1951); Huggins v. DeMent, 13 N.C. | 1 | 1977–1977 |
Chadbourn, Inc. v. Katz
green
2 sentences1977See also: Chadbourn, Inc. v. Katz, 285 N.C. 700 , 208 S.E. 2d 676 (1974); McLean v. McLean, 233 N.C. 139 , 63 S.E. 2d 138 *369 (1951); Huggins v. DeMent, 13 N.C. 1977See also: Chadbourn, Inc. v. Katz, 285 N.C. 700 , 208 S.E. 2d 676 (1974); McLean v. McLean, 233 N.C. 139 , 63 S.E. 2d 138 *369 (1951); Huggins v. DeMent, 13 N.C. | 1 | 1977–1977 |
Collins v. North Carolina State Highway & Public Works Commission
green
2 sentences1966Ed. 865 , said: “An elementary and fundamental requirement of due process in any proceeding which is to be accorded finality is notice reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections.” In Collins v. Highway Commission, 237 N.C. 277 , 74 S.E. 2d 709 , this Court affirmed an order of the superior court judge which dismissed an appeal from a judgment of the clerk confirming the report of commissioners in a condemnation proceeding. 1966Ed. 865 , said: “An elementary and fundamental requirement of due process in any proceeding which is to be accorded finality is notice reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections.” In Collins v. Highway Commission, 237 N.C. 277 , 74 S.E. 2d 709 , this Court affirmed an order of the superior court judge which dismissed an appeal from a judgment of the clerk confirming the report of commissioners in a condemnation proceeding. | 1 | 1966–1966 |
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.