12 North Carolina opinions name it 3 courts 1991–2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
Booker v. Duke Medical Centergreen2 sentences2008In dicta, this Court did discuss two purposes for the statutory notice requirement: “It allows the employer to provide immediate medical diagnosis and treatment with a view to minimizing the seriousness of the injury, and it facilitates the earliest possible investigation of the circumstances surrounding the injury.” Id. at 481 , 256 S.E.2d at 204 (citation omitted). 2008In dicta, this Court did discuss two purposes for the statutory notice requirement: “It allows the employer to provide immediate medical diagnosis and treatment with a view to minimizing the seriousness of the injury, and it facilitates the earliest possible investigation of the circumstances surrounding the injury.” Id. at 481 , 256 S.E.2d at 204 (citation omitted). | 3 | 3 |
Jones v. Lowe's Companies, Inc.green2 sentences2009"Whether prejudice exists requires an evaluation of the evidence in relationship to the purpose of the statutory notice requirement." Id. at 76-77 , 404 S.E.2d at 167 . 2009"Whether prejudice exists requires an evaluation of the evidence in relationship to the purpose of the statutory notice requirement." Id. at 76-77 , 404 S.E.2d at 167 . | 1 | 3 |
Ferguson v. Riddlegreen1 sentence2026This Court has “no power to add to or subtract from the language of the statute”; rather, our “province . . . is to interpret statutes conformable to the language in which they are expressed, and to declare the law in accord with the will of the law-making power, when exercised within constitutional limits.” Ferguson v. Riddle, 233 N.C. 54, 57 (1950). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Hubbardgreen1 sentence2018App. at 158 , 678 S.E.2d at 394 (holding the State complied with the statutory notice requirement where the report "set forth the specific facts that the State contended constituted the violation" despite the facts possibly having "been ambiguously stated in the [violation] report[.]"). | 1 | 1 |
Star Automobile Co. v. Jaguar Cars, Inc.green1 sentence2012App. 103, 109-10 , 382 S.E.2d 226, 230 (holding that, since the trial court erred by concluding that the plaintiff failed to comply with the applicable statutory notice requirement, “we remand the cause to the superior court for consideration on the merits the issues of the adequacy of the good cause alleged for nonrenewal and Jaguar’s good faith”), disc. review denied, 325 N.C. 710 , 388 S.E.2d 463 (1989). | 1 | 1 |
Roberts v. First-Citizens Bank and Trust Co.green1 sentence1999App. at 722 , 478 S.E.2d at 815 (whether plaintiff was fired “solely” because she refused “to violate the statutory notice requirement” and was thereby terminated in contravention of public policy is a question for the jury). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Schubert v. Kampground Properties, Inc.
neutral
1 sentence2012App. 103, 109-10 , 382 S.E.2d 226, 230 (holding that, since the trial court erred by concluding that the plaintiff failed to comply with the applicable statutory notice requirement, “we remand the cause to the superior court for consideration on the merits the issues of the adequacy of the good cause alleged for nonrenewal and Jaguar’s good faith”), disc. review denied, 325 N.C. 710 , 388 S.E.2d 463 (1989). | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Star Automobile Co. v. Jaguar Cars, Inc.
neutral
1 sentence2012App. 103, 109-10 , 382 S.E.2d 226, 230 (holding that, since the trial court erred by concluding that the plaintiff failed to comply with the applicable statutory notice requirement, “we remand the cause to the superior court for consideration on the merits the issues of the adequacy of the good cause alleged for nonrenewal and Jaguar’s good faith”), disc. review denied, 325 N.C. 710 , 388 S.E.2d 463 (1989). | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Gregory v. W.A. Brown & Sons
green
2 sentences2011Id. at 762 , 688 S.E.2d at 439 . 2011Id. at 762 , 688 S.E.2d at 439 . | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Legette v. Scotland Memorial Hospital
green
1 sentence2008More recently, in Legette v. Scotland Mem’l Hosp., 181 N.C. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Aldridge v. Foil Motor Company
green
1 sentence2003Aldridge v. Motor Co. , 262 N.C. 248 , 636 S.E.2d 591 (1964); Doud v. K G Janitorial Service, supra. 5. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
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.