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 2 courts 2000–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Norman v. Nash Johnson & Sons' Farms, Inc.green2 sentences2017App. at 409 , 537 S.E.2d at 261 (holding that the futility exception under the pre- 1995 BCA arises when “corporate management is under control of the guilty parties . . . since the guilty parties would not comply with the request” (quoting Murphy v. City of Greensboro, 190 N.C. 268 , 275–76, 129 S.E. 614 , 617–19 (1925))). 28. 2017The court observed that the futility exception was “grounded in the ancient principle that the law does not require a person to do a vain, or futile, act.” Id. at 408, 537 S.E.2d at 261 (citing Seaboard Air Line R.R. v. Atl. | 2 | 6 |
Seaboard Air Line Railroad v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroadgreen2 sentences2017Coast Line R.R., 240 N.C. 495, 515 , 82 S.E.2d 771, 785 (1954)). 27. 2017Coast Line R.R., 240 N.C. 495, 515 , 82 S.E.2d 771, 785 (1954)). 27. | 2 | 2 |
Dunn v. Ceccarelligreen2 sentences2000Gen.Stat. § 55-7-42 "has eliminated the futility exception to the demand requirement." Norman v. Nash Johnson & Sons' Farms, Inc., ___ N.C.App. ____, 537 S.E.2d 248 (2000); accord Dunn v. Ceccarelli, 227 Ga.App. 505 , 489 S.E.2d 563 (1997) (considering OCGA § 14-2-742, a statute virtually identical to N.C. 2000Gen.Stat. § 55-7-42 "has eliminated the futility exception to the demand requirement." Norman v. Nash Johnson & Sons' Farms, Inc., ___ N.C.App. ____, 537 S.E.2d 248 (2000); accord Dunn v. Ceccarelli, 227 Ga.App. 505 , 489 S.E.2d 563 (1997) (considering OCGA § 14-2-742, a statute virtually identical to N.C. | 2 | 2 |
Allen v. Ferreragreen2 sentences2015Allen & Brock Const. Co., Inc. v. Ferrera, 141 N.C.App. 284 , 288, 540 S.E.2d 761 , 765 (2000) (noting that section 55-7-40(b) allowed for a futility exception to the demand requirement where the directors in control of the corporation were alleged of wrongdoing). 2014See Allen v. Ferrera, 141 N.C. | 1 | 2 |
Roney v. Joynergreen1 sentence2017The court observed that the futility exception was “grounded in the ancient principle that the law does not require a person to do a vain, or futile, act.” Id. at 408, 537 S.E.2d at 261 (citing Seaboard Air Line R.R. v. Atl. | 1 | 1 |
Winters v. First Union Corp.green1 sentence2003“Derivative actions are also subject to several procedural protections against litigation agency costs, including: the contemporaneous ownership requirement, posting security for expense statutes, and most importantly, the demand requirement.” North Carolina has elected to eliminate the futility test and require demand under all circumstances and does not require posting security for expenses. [12] Winters v. First Union, 2001 NCBC 8 n.1 (No. 01 CVS 5362, Mecklenburg Super Ct. July 13, 2002) (Tennille, J.). [13] First Union Corp. v. SunTrust, Inc., 2001 NCBC 9 (No. 01 CVS 10075, Mecklenburg Su | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Greene v. Shoemaker
green
2 sentences2008Id. at ¶¶ 41–81. 2000Id. at 19- 22. | 2 | 2000–2008 |
Murphy v. City of Greensboro
green
2 sentences2017App. at 409 , 537 S.E.2d at 261 (holding that the futility exception under the pre- 1995 BCA arises when “corporate management is under control of the guilty parties . . . since the guilty parties would not comply with the request” (quoting Murphy v. City of Greensboro, 190 N.C. 268 , 275–76, 129 S.E. 614 , 617–19 (1925))). 28. 2017App. at 409 , 537 S.E.2d at 261 (holding that the futility exception under the pre- 1995 BCA arises when “corporate management is under control of the guilty parties . . . since the guilty parties would not comply with the request” (quoting Murphy v. City of Greensboro, 190 N.C. 268 , 275–76, 129 S.E. 614 , 617–19 (1925))). 28. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Barger v. McCoy Hillard & Parks
green
2 sentences2015Given our ruling that the POA, and not plaintiffs, has standing to pursue these claims against the third parties because of the POA's actions following plaintiffs' demands, we need not address: (1) whether plaintiffs' derivative claims were rendered moot upon the filing of the POA's intervenor complaint; (2) the Developers' argument that some plaintiffs were not members of the POA at the time of the alleged wrongdoing; or (3) arguments pertaining to the rule in Barger v. McCoy Hillard & Parks, 346 N.C. 650 , 488 S.E.2d 215 (1997). 2015Given our ruling that the POA, and not plaintiffs, has standing to pursue these claims against the third parties because of the POA's actions following plaintiffs' demands, we need not address: (1) whether plaintiffs' derivative claims were rendered moot upon the filing of the POA's intervenor complaint; (2) the Developers' argument that some plaintiffs were not members of the POA at the time of the alleged wrongdoing; or (3) arguments pertaining to the rule in Barger v. McCoy Hillard & Parks, 346 N.C. 650 , 488 S.E.2d 215 (1997). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Allen Ex Rel. Allen & Brock v. Ferrera
green
1 sentence2015Allen & Brock Const. Co., Inc. v. Ferrera, 141 N.C.App. 284 , 288, 540 S.E.2d 761 , 765 (2000) (noting that section 55-7-40(b) allowed for a futility exception to the demand requirement where the directors in control of the corporation were alleged of wrongdoing). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Bovis Constr. Corp. v. Western Mass. Life Care Corp.
neutral
1 sentence2000"The general rule in statutory construction is that `[a] statute must be construed as written.'" Carrington v. Brown, 136 N.C.App. 554, 558 , 525 S.E.2d 230, 234 , disc. review denied, 352 N.C. 147 , ___ S.E.2d ___ (2000). | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Carrington v. Brown
green
2 sentences2000"The general rule in statutory construction is that `[a] statute must be construed as written.'" Carrington v. Brown, 136 N.C.App. 554, 558 , 525 S.E.2d 230, 234 , disc. review denied, 352 N.C. 147 , ___ S.E.2d ___ (2000). 2000"The general rule in statutory construction is that `[a] statute must be construed as written.'" Carrington v. Brown, 136 N.C.App. 554, 558 , 525 S.E.2d 230, 234 , disc. review denied, 352 N.C. 147 , ___ S.E.2d ___ (2000). | 1 | 2000–2000 |
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.