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.
515 North Carolina opinions name it 3 courts 1943–2026 196 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Williamsgreen2 sentences2025“Under the de novo standard, this Court ‘considers the matter anew and freely substitutes its own judgment for that of the lower tribunal.’” Id. at 551 , 825 S.E.2d at 695 (quoting State v. Williams, 362 N.C. 628 , 632-33, 669 S.E.2d 290, 294 (2008) (citation and quotation marks omitted)). 2025“Under the de novo standard, this Court ‘considers the matter anew and freely substitutes its own judgment for that of the lower tribunal.’” Id. at 551 , 825 S.E.2d at 695 (quoting State v. Williams, 362 N.C. 628 , 632-33, 669 S.E.2d 290, 294 (2008) (citation and quotation marks omitted)). | 27 | 30 |
Reese v. Mecklenburg Countygreen2 sentences2026“Under a de novo standard of review, this Court considers the matter anew and freely substitutes its own judgment for that of the trial court.” Reese v. Mecklenburg Cnty., 200 N.C. App. 491, 497 , 685 S.E.2d 34, 38 (2009) (citation omitted). 2026“Under a de novo standard of review, this Court considers the matter anew and freely substitutes its own judgment for that of the trial court.” Reese v. Mecklenburg Cnty., 200 N.C. App. 491, 497 , 685 S.E.2d 34, 38 (2009) (citation omitted). | 18 | 21 |
North Carolina Department of Environment & Natural Resources v. Carrollgreen2 sentences2018"Under the de novo standard of review, [this Court] considers the matter anew and freely substitutes its own judgment for the agency's." Id. at 660 , 599 S.E.2d at 895 (internal citations and marks omitted). 2018"Under the de novo standard of review, [this Court] considers the matter anew and freely substitutes its own judgment for the agency's." Id. at 660 , 599 S.E.2d at 895 (internal citations and marks omitted). | 12 | 29 |
In Re the Will of Jonesgreen2 sentences2015"We review trial court orders granting or denying a summary judgment motion utilizing a de novo standard of review." Davis v. Woodlake Partners, LLC, 230 N.C.App. 88 , ----, 748 S.E.2d 762 , 766 (2013) (citing In re Will of Jones, 362 N.C. 569 , 573, 669 S.E.2d 572 , 576 (2008) ). 2015"We review trial court orders granting or denying a summary judgment motion utilizing a de novo standard of review." Davis v. Woodlake Partners, LLC, 230 N.C.App. 88 , ----, 748 S.E.2d 762 , 766 (2013) (citing In re Will of Jones, 362 N.C. 569 , 573, 669 S.E.2d 572 , 576 (2008) ). | 11 | 13 |
Midrex Technologies, Inc. v. N.C. Department of Revenuegreen2 sentences2023“Appeals arising from summary judgment orders are decided using a de novo standard of review.” Midrex Techs. v. N.C. Dep’t of Revenue, 369 N.C. 250, 257 (2016). 2021“Appeals arising from summary judgment orders are decided using a de novo standard of review.” Midrex Techs., Inc. v. N.C. Dep’t of Revenue, 369 N.C. 250, 257 (2016) (citation omitted). | 10 | 11 |
In Re Appeal of the Greens of Pine Glen Ltd. Partnershipgreen2 sentences2017P'ship , 356 N.C. 642 , 647, 576 S.E.2d 316 , 319 (2003) ). 2017P'ship , 356 N.C. 642 , 647, 576 S.E.2d 316 , 319 (2003) ). | 9 | 12 |
State v. Marshallgreen2 sentences2019Standard of Review This Court "review[s] the issue of insufficiency of an indictment under a de novo standard of review." State v. Marshall , 188 N.C. 2018Additionally, this Court "review[s] the issue of insufficiency of an indictment under a de novo standard of review." State v. Marshall , 188 N.C. | 6 | 8 |
State v. Wilsongreen2 sentences2026State v. Wilson, 236 N.C. App. 472, 475 (2014). 2. 2023Standard of Review “We review per se ineffective assistance of counsel claims de novo.” State v. Moore, 286 N.C. App. 341 , 345 (2022) (citing State v. Harbison, 315 N.C. 175 (1985)); see also State v. Wilson, 236 N.C. App. 472, 475-78 (2014) (applying the de novo standard to the defendant’s claim that his trial counsel’s statements amounted to - 14 - Harbison error). 2. | 6 | 6 |
Wetherington v. North Carolina Department of Public Safetygreen2 sentences2021“Under the de novo standard of review, the trial court considers the matter anew and freely substitutes its own judgment for the agency’s.” Wetherington v. North Carolina Dept. of Public Safety, 368 N.C. 583, 590 , 780 S.E.2d 543, 547 (2015) (“Wetherington I”) (internal quotations and alterations omitted). 2021“Under the de novo standard of review, the trial court considers the matter anew and freely substitutes its own judgment for the agency’s.” Wetherington v. North Carolina Dept. of Public Safety, 368 N.C. 583, 590 , 780 S.E.2d 543, 547 (2015) (“Wetherington I”) (internal quotations and alterations omitted). | 6 | 6 |
Dallaire v. Bank of America, N.A.green2 sentences2023“Summary judgment is appropriate when ‘the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that any party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Dallaire v. Bank of America, N.A., 367 -4- N.C. 363, 367, 760 S.E.2d 263, 266 (2014) (quoting N.C. Gen. 2022Dallaire v. Bank of Am., N.A., 367 N.C. 363, 367 (2014). | 6 | 6 |
Mann Media, Inc. v. Randolph County Planning Boardgreen2 sentences2022In applying “the whole record test, [a] finding must stand unless it is arbitrary [or] capricious.” Id. at 16 , 565 S.E.2d at 19 . ¶ 22 When this Court reviews an order of the superior court relating to an agency decision, we examine the order for errors of law in a twofold process: “(1) determining whether the trial court exercised the appropriate scope of review and, if appropriate, (2) deciding whether the court did so properly.” Id. at 14 , 565 S.E.2d at 18 . ¶ 23 In this case, it is clear the superior court correctly exercised the de novo standard of review in conducting its statutory int 2022In applying “the whole record test, [a] finding must stand unless it is arbitrary [or] capricious.” Id. at 16 , 565 S.E.2d at 19 . ¶ 22 When this Court reviews an order of the superior court relating to an agency decision, we examine the order for errors of law in a twofold process: “(1) determining whether the trial court exercised the appropriate scope of review and, if appropriate, (2) deciding whether the court did so properly.” Id. at 14 , 565 S.E.2d at 18 . ¶ 23 In this case, it is clear the superior court correctly exercised the de novo standard of review in conducting its statutory int | 5 | 9 |
Capricorn Equity Corp. v. Town of Chapel Hill Board of Adjustmentgreen2 sentences2026“Questions involving the interpretation of ordinances are questions of law.” -3- Ayers v. Bd. of Adjustment, 113 N.C. App. 528, 531 , 439 S.E.2d 199, 201 (1994). “[O]n appeal of the judgment of the superior court, this Court must apply a de novo standard of review in determining whether ‘the superior court committed error of law in interpreting and applying the municipal ordinance,’ and may also freely substitute its judgment for that of the superior court.” Hayes v. Fowler, 123 N.C. App. 400, 404 , 473 S.E.2d 442, 445 (1996) (quoting Capricorn Equity Corp. v. Town of Chapel Hill Bd. of Adjust 2026“Questions involving the interpretation of ordinances are questions of law.” -3- Ayers v. Bd. of Adjustment, 113 N.C. App. 528, 531 , 439 S.E.2d 199, 201 (1994). “[O]n appeal of the judgment of the superior court, this Court must apply a de novo standard of review in determining whether ‘the superior court committed error of law in interpreting and applying the municipal ordinance,’ and may also freely substitute its judgment for that of the superior court.” Hayes v. Fowler, 123 N.C. App. 400, 404 , 473 S.E.2d 442, 445 (1996) (quoting Capricorn Equity Corp. v. Town of Chapel Hill Bd. of Adjust | 5 | 7 |
Trivette v. Yountgreen2 sentences2019"Pursuant to the de novo standard of review, the court considers the matter anew and freely substitutes its own judgment for that of the [trial court]." Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted) (alteration in original). 2014“Pursuantto the de novo standard of review, the court considers the matter anew and freely substitutes its own judgment for that of the trial court.” Trivette v. Yount, 217 N.C. | 5 | 6 |
Horne ex rel. Heintzelman v. Town of Blowing Rockgreen2 sentences2026“Under a de novo standard of review, this Court considers the matter anew and freely substitutes its own judgment for that of the trial court.” Horne v. Town of Blowing Rock, 223 N.C. App. 26, 32 (2012) (citation omitted). 2022“Under a de novo standard of review, this Court considers the matter anew and freely substitutes its own judgment for that of the trial court.” Horne v. Town of Blowing Rock, 223 N.C. App. 26, 32 , 732 S.E.2d 614, 618 (2012) (citation omitted). | 5 | 5 |
White v. Trew, 366 NC 360green2 sentences2022PROVIDENCE VOLUNTEER FIRE DEP’T, INC. 2022-NCSC-100 Opinion of the Court See White v. Trew, 366 N.C. 360 , 362-63 (2013) (reviewing an appeal from a trial court order denying “a motion to dismiss that raises sovereign immunity as grounds for dismissal” utilizing a de novo standard of review). 2022PROVIDENCE VOLUNTEER FIRE DEP’T, INC. 2022-NCSC-100 Opinion of the Court See White v. Trew, 366 N.C. 360 , 362-63 (2013) (reviewing an appeal from a trial court order denying “a motion to dismiss that raises sovereign immunity as grounds for dismissal” utilizing a de novo standard of review). | 4 | 12 |
Holton v. Holtongreen2 sentences2026A. Standard of Review This Court “appl[ies] a de novo standard when reviewing either a Rule 12(b)(1) or 12(b)(6) dismissal . . . .” Holton v. Holton, 258 N.C. App. 408, 414 , 813 S.E.2d 649, 654 (2018). 2026A. Standard of Review This Court “appl[ies] a de novo standard when reviewing either a Rule 12(b)(1) or 12(b)(6) dismissal . . . .” Holton v. Holton, 258 N.C. App. 408, 414 , 813 S.E.2d 649, 654 (2018). | 4 | 5 |
Jennewein v. CITY COUNCIL OF CITY OF WILMINGTONgreen2 sentences2026See, e.g., Heritage Pointe Builders[ v. N.C. Licensing Bd. of General Contractors], 120 N.C. App. [502,] 504 (1995) (appeal of superior court’s remand to a licensing board for rehearing dismissed as interlocutory); Jennewein v. City Council of the City of Wilmington, 46 N.C. App. 324, 326 (1980) (appeal of superior court’s remand to a city council for a de novo hearing dismissed as interlocutory). 2026See, e.g., Heritage Pointe Builders[ v. N.C. Licensing Bd. of General Contractors], 120 N.C. App. [502,] 504, 462 S.E.2d [696,] 698 (1995) (appeal of superior court’s remand to a licensing board for rehearing dismissed as interlocutory); Jennewein v. City Council of the City of Wilmington, 46 N.C. App. 324, 326 , 264 S.E.2d 802, 803 (1980) (appeal of superior court’s remand to a city council for a de novo hearing dismissed as interlocutory). | 4 | 5 |
Irving v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Educationgreen2 sentences2026Importantly, although we usually review “whether the findings of fact by the trial court are supported by competent evidence,” Banc of Am. Sec., LLC, 169 N.C. App. at 694 , 611 S.E.2d at 183 , because governmental immunity is a question of law, “we review the trial court’s decision as to personal jurisdiction de novo . . . when it turns solely on the question of governmental immunity.” Torres, 288 N.C. App. at 622, 887 S.E.2d at 434 (citing Farmer v. Troy Univ., 382 N.C. 366 , 370, 879 S.E.2d 124 , 127 (2022)); Providence Volunteer Fire Dep’t, Inc. v. Town of Weddington, 382 N.C. 199 , 209, 87 2026Importantly, although we usually review “whether the findings of fact by the trial court are supported by competent evidence,” Banc of Am. Sec., LLC, 169 N.C. App. at 694 , 611 S.E.2d at 183 , because governmental immunity is a question of law, “we review the trial court’s decision as to personal jurisdiction de novo . . . when it turns solely on the question of governmental immunity.” Torres, 288 N.C. App. at 622, 887 S.E.2d at 434 (citing Farmer v. Troy Univ., 382 N.C. 366 , 370, 879 S.E.2d 124 , 127 (2022)); Providence Volunteer Fire Dep’t, Inc. v. Town of Weddington, 382 N.C. 199 , 209, 87 | 4 | 4 |
Leary v. N.C. Forest Products, Inc.green2 sentences2025Leary v. N.C. Forest Prods., Inc., 157 N.C. App. 396, 400 , 580 S.E.2d 1, 4 (2003). 2025Leary v. N.C. Forest Prods., Inc., 157 N.C. App. 396, 400 , 580 S.E.2d 1, 4 (2003). | 4 | 4 |
| State v. Watlingtongreen | 4 | 4 |
| Piedmont Triad Regional Water Authority v. Sumner Hills Inc.green | 4 | 4 |
| State v. Sturdivantgreen | 4 | 4 |
| State v. Davisgreen | 4 | 4 |
| State v. Jacksongreen | 4 | 4 |
| State v. Broyhillgreen | 4 | 4 |
| State v. Icardgreen | 4 | 4 |
Ayers v. Board of Adjustment for Robersonvillegreen2 sentences2026“Questions involving the interpretation of ordinances are questions of law.” -3- Ayers v. Bd. of Adjustment, 113 N.C. App. 528, 531 , 439 S.E.2d 199, 201 (1994). “[O]n appeal of the judgment of the superior court, this Court must apply a de novo standard of review in determining whether ‘the superior court committed error of law in interpreting and applying the municipal ordinance,’ and may also freely substitute its judgment for that of the superior court.” Hayes v. Fowler, 123 N.C. App. 400, 404 , 473 S.E.2d 442, 445 (1996) (quoting Capricorn Equity Corp. v. Town of Chapel Hill Bd. of Adjust 2026“Questions involving the interpretation of ordinances are questions of law.” -3- Ayers v. Bd. of Adjustment, 113 N.C. App. 528, 531 , 439 S.E.2d 199, 201 (1994). “[O]n appeal of the judgment of the superior court, this Court must apply a de novo standard of review in determining whether ‘the superior court committed error of law in interpreting and applying the municipal ordinance,’ and may also freely substitute its judgment for that of the superior court.” Hayes v. Fowler, 123 N.C. App. 400, 404 , 473 S.E.2d 442, 445 (1996) (quoting Capricorn Equity Corp. v. Town of Chapel Hill Bd. of Adjust | 3 | 9 |
Sutton v. North Carolina Department of Laborgreen2 sentences2020Under the well-established de novo standard of review, “the superior court ‘considers the matter anew and freely substitutes its own judgment for the [local governing board’s] judgment.’ ” Mann Media, 356 N.C. at 13-14, 565 S.E.2d at 17 (cleaned up) (quoting Sutton v. N.C. Dep’t of Labor, 132 N.C. App. 387, 389 , 511 S.E.2d 340, 341 (1999)). 2020Under the well-established de novo standard of review, “the superior court ‘considers the matter anew and freely substitutes its own judgment for the [local governing board’s] judgment.’ ” Mann Media, 356 N.C. at 13-14, 565 S.E.2d at 17 (cleaned up) (quoting Sutton v. N.C. Dep’t of Labor, 132 N.C. App. 387, 389 , 511 S.E.2d 340, 341 (1999)). | 3 | 6 |
| State v. Grahamgreen | 3 | 4 |
State v. Shackelfordgreen2 sentences2025“Under the de novo standard, this Court ‘considers the matter anew and freely substitutes its own judgment for that of the lower tribunal.’” Id. at 551 , 825 S.E.2d at 695 (quoting State v. Williams, 362 N.C. 628 , 632-33, 669 S.E.2d 290, 294 (2008) (citation and quotation marks omitted)). 2025“Under the de novo standard, this Court ‘considers the matter anew and freely substitutes its own judgment for that of the lower tribunal.’” Id. at 551 , 825 S.E.2d at 695 (quoting State v. Williams, 362 N.C. 628 , 632-33, 669 S.E.2d 290, 294 (2008) (citation and quotation marks omitted)). | 3 | 4 |
| Four Seasons Management Services, Inc. v. Town of Wrightsville Beachgreen | 3 | 3 |
| Strickland v. Washingtongreen | 3 | 3 |
| In re: E.M.green | 3 | 3 |
| Amanini v. N.C. Department of Human Resourcesgreen | 3 | 3 |
| Wray v. City of Greensborogreen | 3 | 3 |
| In Re the Summons Issued to Ernst & Young, LLPgreen | 3 | 3 |
| State v. Bowditchgreen | 3 | 3 |
| Leary v. NC Forest Products, Inc.green | 3 | 3 |
| Krawiec v. Manlygreen | 3 | 3 |
| State Ex Rel. Lively v. Berrygreen | 3 | 3 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in North Carolina. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In Re Am
green
2 sentences2025Under the de novo standard, the Court considers the matter anew and freely substitutes its own judgment for that of the lower court.” In re A.M., 220 N.C. App. 136, 137 , 724 S.E.2d 651, 653 (2012) (citation and quotation marks omitted). 2025Id. at 180, 891 S.E.2d at 616. “ ‘Under the de novo standard, [this] Court considers the matter anew and freely substitutes its own judgment for that of the lower court.’ ” In re N.M., 290 N.C. App. 482 , 483, 892 S.E.2d 643 , 645 (2023) (quoting In re A.M., 220 N.C. App. 136, 137 , 724 S.E.2d 651, 653 (2012)). | 6 | 2015–2025 |
In re the Appeal by McCrary
green
2 sentences2022However, if a reviewing court is determining whether the findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions are “[u]nsupported by substantial evidence admissible under G.S. 150B-29(a), 150B-30, or 150B-31 in view of the entire record as submitted” or “[a]rbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion,” a whole record standard of review is to be applied. § 150B-51(b)(5)-(6), (c). ¶ 26 When this Court reviews an appeal from a superior court which either affirmed or reversed an administrative agency’s decision, we review for two factors: “(1) whether the superior court applied the appropriate stand 1995Utilizing the de novo standard, McCrary, 112 N.C. | 5 | 1995–2022 |
| Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of United States, Inc. green | 4 | 2020–2024 |
| DiCesare v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Hosp. Auth. green | 4 | 2022–2022 |
| In Re DSA green | 3 | 2009–2022 |
| Morris Communications Corp. v. City of Bessemer City Zoning Board of Adjustment green | 3 | 2017–2022 |
| State v. Campbell green | 3 | 2022–2022 |
| State v. Simpkins green | 3 | 2022–2022 |
| United States v. Bly green | 3 | 2020–2020 |
| State v. Marino green | 3 | 2015–2018 |
| Raleigh Rescue Mission, Inc. v. Board of Adjustment green | 3 | 2003–2016 |
| McKoy v. McKoy green | 3 | 2015–2015 |
| Home Indemnity Co. v. Hoechst-Celanese Corp. green | 3 | 1993–2014 |
| State v. Joyner green | 2 | 2025–2026 |
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.