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.
12 North Carolina opinions name it 3 courts 1998–2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Nowlingreen2 sentences2020Id. at 1461 ; see, e.g., United States v. Nowlin, 555 F. App’x 820, 823 (10th Cir. 2014) (using the St. 2020Id. at 1461 ; see, e.g., United States v. Nowlin, 555 F. App’x 820, 823 (10th Cir. 2014) (using the St. | 3 | 3 |
State v. Baldwingreen2 sentences2017Stat. § 90-108 (a)(7), the court considers the following factors, none of which are dispositive: "ownership of the property, occupancy of the property, repairs to the property, payment of utilities, payment of repairs, and payment of rent." State v. Baldwin, 161 N.C. 2009Stat. § 90-108 (a)(7), the court considers the following factors, none of which are dispositive: “ownership of the property, occupancy of the property, repairs to the property, payment of utilities, payment of repairs, and payment of rent.” State v. Baldwin, 161 N.C. | 1 | 2 |
Green v. Freemangreen1 sentence2014Green v. Freeman, __ N.C. __, __, 749 S.E.2d 262, 270 (2013). {14} In determining whether the first element has been satisfied, the court considers the following factors: “Inadequate capitalization . . .; Non-compliance with corporate formalities; . . . | 1 | 1 |
Statesville Medical Group, P.A. v. Dickeygreen2 sentences2006This Court considers the following factors in determining the risk of substantial harm to the public: “the shortage of specialists in the field in the restricted area, the impact of... establishing a monopoly... in the area, including the impact on fees in the future and the availability of a doctor at *600 all times for emergencies, and the public interest in having a choice in the selection of a physician.” Statesville Medical Group v. Dickey, 106 N.C. 2006App. 669, 673 , 418 S.E.2d 256, 259 (1992) (citations omitted). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Triplettgreen2 sentences1998State v. Triplett, 316 N.C. 1, 10-11 , 340 S.E.2d 736, 742 (1986). 1998State v. Triplett, 316 N.C. 1, 10-11 , 340 S.E.2d 736, 742 (1986). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
St. Cloud v. United States
green
2 sentences2020Id. at 1461 ; see, e.g., United States v. Nowlin, 555 F. App’x 820, 823 (10th Cir. 2014) (using the St. 2020Id. at 1461 ; see, e.g., United States v. Nowlin, 555 F. App’x 820, 823 (10th Cir. 2014) (using the St. | 3 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Gamble
green
2 sentences2020REAVES-SMITH Opinion of the Court State v. Gamble, 243 N.C. 2020REAVES-SMITH Opinion of the Court State v. Gamble, 243 N.C. | 2 | 2020–2020 |
Stegall v. Stegall
green
1 sentence2026Stegall v. Stegall, 100 N.C. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Filmar Racing, Inc. v. Stewart
green
2 sentences2016In determining the existence of minimum contacts, the Court considers the following factors: “(1) the quantity of the contacts, (2) the nature and quality of the contacts, (3) the source and connection of the cause of action to the contacts, (4) the interest of the forum state, and (5) convenience of the parties.” Id. at 672 , 541 S.E.2d at 737 . 31. 2016In determining the existence of minimum contacts, the Court considers the following factors: “(1) the quantity of the contacts, (2) the nature and quality of the contacts, (3) the source and connection of the cause of action to the contacts, (4) the interest of the forum state, and (5) convenience of the parties.” Id. at 672 , 541 S.E.2d at 737 . 31. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
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.