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 1897–2011 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 |
|---|---|---|
Close v. Superior Excavating Co.green2 sentences2011When asked on appeal to adopt the Warren Trucking test, the Supreme Courts of Arizona and Vermont considered and rejected the application of the four-part test, favoring a “flexible case-by-case approach” and renouncing the “rigid framework” of the four-part test, stating that it “[did] not further the remedial purposes of workers’ compensation statutes[.]” Close v. Superior Excavating Co., 166 Vt. 318, 324 , 693 A.2d 729, 732 (1997) (stating that “we do not believe that [Warren Trucking’s] rigid frame *249 work is necessary to decide these cases[;] [t]he Commissioner, aware of Warren Trucking 2011When asked on appeal to adopt the Warren Trucking test, the Supreme Courts of Arizona and Vermont considered and rejected the application of the four-part test, favoring a “flexible case-by-case approach” and renouncing the “rigid framework” of the four-part test, stating that it “[did] not further the remedial purposes of workers’ compensation statutes[.]” Close v. Superior Excavating Co., 166 Vt. 318, 324 , 693 A.2d 729, 732 (1997) (stating that “we do not believe that [Warren Trucking’s] rigid frame *249 work is necessary to decide these cases[;] [t]he Commissioner, aware of Warren Trucking | 1 | 1 |
Ultramares Corp. v. Touchegreen2 sentences1988The most restrictive standard was first enunciated in an opinion by then Chief Judge Cardozo of the New York Court of Appeals, in which the Court concluded that to be liable for negligent misrepresentation, an accountant must be in privity of contract with the person seeking to impose liability or there must be “[a] bond ... so close as to approach that of privity.” Ultramares Corp. v. Touche, Niven & Co., 255 N.Y. 170, 182-83 , 174 N.E. 441, 446 (1931). 1988The most restrictive standard was first enunciated in an opinion by then Chief Judge Cardozo of the New York Court of Appeals, in which the Court concluded that to be liable for negligent misrepresentation, an accountant must be in privity of contract with the person seeking to impose liability or there must be “[a] bond ... so close as to approach that of privity.” Ultramares Corp. v. Touche, Niven & Co., 255 N.Y. 170, 182-83 , 174 N.E. 441, 446 (1931). | 1 | 1 |
Freeman v. Mayor of Atlantagreen1 sentence1916See, also, Allen v. Young, 66 Ga., 617 , which was cited for that position in Guano Co. v. Live-stock Co., supra, at p. 448. | 1 | 1 |
Hampton Guano Co. v. Hill Live-Stock Co.green2 sentences1916Our attention has been called to a case recently' decided in South Carolina, Germofert v. Cathcart, 88 S. E., 535 , in which, upon careful examination, we find the Court construed a contract almost identical in language with the one which was under consideration in Guano Co. v. Live-stock Co., 168 N. C., 442 , and it held, as we did in the latter case, that the express warranty, and the restrictive clause therein as to non-liability for results, excluded the evidence as to failure of crops. 1916See, also, Allen v. Young, 66 Ga., 617 , which was cited for that position in Guano Co. v. Live-stock Co., supra, at p. 448. | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Daniel v. New Amsterdam Casualty Co.
green
2 sentences1979There is evidence here from which the jury might infer that by reason of the omission on the part of Alphin Plumbing and Heating Co. to do work essential to the functioning of the heater in the manner intended and called for in the contract, the work at the time plaintiff sustained her injury had never reached that condition of completeness that would render the restrictive clause in the policy operable. 221 N.C. at 77 , 18 S.E.2d at 820 . 1979There is evidence here from which the jury might infer that by reason of the omission on the part of Alphin Plumbing and Heating Co. to do work essential to the functioning of the heater in the manner intended and called for in the contract, the work at the time plaintiff sustained her injury had never reached that condition of completeness that would render the restrictive clause in the policy operable. 221 N.C. at 77 , 18 S.E.2d at 820 . | 3 | 1979–2000 |
Cox v. . McGowan
green
2 sentences1926Carter v. White, 101 N. C., 30 ; Cox v. McGowan, 116 N. C., 131 ; Potter v. Bonner, 174 N. C., 20 . 1926Carter v. White , 101 N.C. 30 ; Cox v. McGowan , 116 N.C. 131 ; Potter v. Bonner , 174 N.C. 20 . | 2 | 1926–1926 |
Carter v. . White
neutral
2 sentences1926Carter v. White, 101 N. C., 30 ; Cox v. McGowan, 116 N. C., 131 ; Potter v. Bonner, 174 N. C., 20 . 1926Carter v. White , 101 N.C. 30 ; Cox v. McGowan , 116 N.C. 131 ; Potter v. Bonner , 174 N.C. 20 . | 2 | 1926–1926 |
Potter v. . Bonner
neutral
2 sentences1926Carter v. White, 101 N. C., 30 ; Cox v. McGowan, 116 N. C., 131 ; Potter v. Bonner, 174 N. C., 20 . 1926Carter v. White , 101 N.C. 30 ; Cox v. McGowan , 116 N.C. 131 ; Potter v. Bonner , 174 N.C. 20 . | 2 | 1926–1926 |
Crossman v. Moore
green
2 sentences2002Accordingly, the case law of foreign jurisdictions has limited relevance; instead, we must examine the origins of the North Carolina rule. *39 The Crossman Court noted that North Carolina’s Rule 15 “is drawn from the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules, Rule 203(e).” Crossman, 341 N.C. at 187 , 459 S.E.2d at 717 . 2002Accordingly, the case law of foreign jurisdictions has limited relevance; instead, we must examine the origins of the North Carolina rule. *39 The Crossman Court noted that North Carolina’s Rule 15 “is drawn from the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules, Rule 203(e).” Crossman, 341 N.C. at 187 , 459 S.E.2d at 717 . | 1 | 2002–2002 |
State v. Fox
green
2 sentences1975Bruton v. United States, supra ; State v. Fox, 274 N.C. 277 , 163 S.E.2d 492 (1968). 1975Bruton v. United States, supra ; State v. Fox, 274 N.C. 277 , 163 S.E.2d 492 (1968). | 1 | 1975–1975 |
Cain v. . Rouse
neutral
1 sentence1929This is a civil action brought by plaintiff against defendant, for the purpose of securing a restraining order to the hearing, restraining defendant from violating an alleged contract of employment, containing a restrictive clause prohibiting the defendant for a period of three years from soliciting or doing business with any clients of the plaintiff or any person for whom the defendant, during the plaintiff’s employment, performed services. *226 In Tise v. Whitaker-Harvey Co., 144 N. C., at p. 510-11, tbe following is stated: “It is tbe rule with, us that in actions of this character, tbe mai | 1 | 1929–1929 |
Camel City Coach Co. v. Griffin
neutral
1 sentence1929This is a civil action brought by plaintiff against defendant, for the purpose of securing a restraining order to the hearing, restraining defendant from violating an alleged contract of employment, containing a restrictive clause prohibiting the defendant for a period of three years from soliciting or doing business with any clients of the plaintiff or any person for whom the defendant, during the plaintiff’s employment, performed services. *226 In Tise v. Whitaker-Harvey Co., 144 N. C., at p. 510-11, tbe following is stated: “It is tbe rule with, us that in actions of this character, tbe mai | 1 | 1929–1929 |
Germofert Mfg. Co. v. Cathcart
neutral
1 sentence1916Our attention has been called to a case recently' decided in South Carolina, Germofert v. Cathcart, 88 S. E., 535 , in which, upon careful examination, we find the Court construed a contract almost identical in language with the one which was under consideration in Guano Co. v. Live-stock Co., 168 N. C., 442 , and it held, as we did in the latter case, that the express warranty, and the restrictive clause therein as to non-liability for results, excluded the evidence as to failure of crops. | 1 | 1916–1916 |
Brodnax v. Groom
green
1 sentence1897Article II, Section 12, declares that, “The General Assembly shall not pass any private law unless it shall be made to appear that thirty days notice of the application to pass such a law shall have been given, under such direction and in such manner as shall he provided by law.” This is a restrictive clause, and yet in Brodnax v. Groom, 64 N. C., 244 , it was held by this Court that if a private Act for the purpose of levying a special tax for -the- County be certified by the presiding officers of the two branches of the Legislature, as duly ratified, it is not competent for the judiciary to | 1 | 1897–1897 |
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.