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.
11 North Carolina opinions name it 3 courts 1993–2026 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
In Re Bieter Companygreen2 sentences2020See In re Bieter Co., 16 F.3d 929, 939 (8th Cir. 1994) (establishing the functional-equivalent test for federal courts in the Eighth Circuit); United States v. Kovel, 296 F.2d 918 , 921–22 (2d Cir. 1961) (establishing the Kovel doctrine for federal courts in the Second Circuit). 2020See In re Bieter Co., 16 F.3d 929, 939 (8th Cir. 1994) (establishing the functional-equivalent test for federal courts in the Eighth Circuit); United States v. Kovel, 296 F.2d 918 , 921–22 (2d Cir. 1961) (establishing the Kovel doctrine for federal courts in the Second Circuit). | 2 | 2 |
Willis v. Duke Power Co.green2 sentences2020The work-product doctrine only protects communications when they are “prepared in anticipation of litigation” by a person acting as a company’s “consultant . . . or agent.” N.C.G.S. § 1A-1, Rule 26(b)(3) (2019); see also Willis v. Duke Power Co., 291 N.C. 19 , 35–36, 229 S.E.2d 191, 201 (1976). 2020The work-product doctrine only protects communications when they are “prepared in anticipation of litigation” by a person acting as a company’s “consultant . . . or agent.” N.C.G.S. § 1A-1, Rule 26(b)(3) (2019); see also Willis v. Duke Power Co., 291 N.C. 19 , 35–36, 229 S.E.2d 191, 201 (1976). | 2 | 2 |
Energy Investors Fund, L.P. v. Metric Constructors, Inc.green2 sentences2017Thus, plaintiff has failed to allege any injury that is separate and distinct from the harm suffered by . . . all of [the corporation’s] shareholders collectively.”); Energy Investors Fund, L.P. v. Metric Constructors, Inc., 351 N.C. 331, 336 , 525 S.E.2d 441, 444 (2000) (“[W]e find that the complaint shows [plaintiff’s] injury is the loss of its investment, which is identical to the injury suffered by the other limited partners and by the partnership as a whole.”). 2017Thus, plaintiff has failed to allege any injury that is separate and distinct from the harm suffered by . . . all of [the corporation’s] shareholders collectively.”); Energy Investors Fund, L.P. v. Metric Constructors, Inc., 351 N.C. 331, 336 , 525 S.E.2d 441, 444 (2000) (“[W]e find that the complaint shows [plaintiff’s] injury is the loss of its investment, which is identical to the injury suffered by the other limited partners and by the partnership as a whole.”). | 2 | 2 |
Barger v. McCoy Hillard & Parksgreen2 sentences2016See, e.g., Energy Investors, 351 N.C. at 336 , 525 S.E.2d at 444 (finding no individualized injury where the plaintiff's "injury [was] the loss of its investment, which is identical to *583 the injury suffered by other limited partners and by the partnership as a whole"); *703 Barger, 346 N.C. at 659 , 488 S.E.2d at 220 ("The only injury plaintiffs as shareholders allege is the diminution or destruction of the value of their shares as the result of defendants' negligent or fraudulent misrepresentations of TFH's financial status. 2016See, e.g., Energy Investors, 351 N.C. at 336 , 525 S.E.2d at 444 (finding no individualized injury where the plaintiff's "injury [was] the loss of its investment, which is identical to *583 the injury suffered by other limited partners and by the partnership as a whole"); *703 Barger, 346 N.C. at 659 , 488 S.E.2d at 220 ("The only injury plaintiffs as shareholders allege is the diminution or destruction of the value of their shares as the result of defendants' negligent or fraudulent misrepresentations of TFH's financial status. | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Von Ramm v. Von Ramm
green
2 sentences2026Moreover, where a party “technically fails to comply with procedural requirements in filing papers with the court, the court may determine that the party complied with the rule if the party accomplishes the functional equivalent of the requirement.” Von Ramm v. Von Ramm, 99 N.C. 1993Secondly, the appeal will not be lost if the appellant failed technically to comply with the rules of appellate procedure relating to filing papers with the court, but “accomplishfed] the functional equivalent' of the requirement.” Id. (emphasis in original). | 5 | 1993–2026 |
Chee v. Estes
green
2 sentences2023Second, the appeal will not be dismissed where the “appellant technically fails to comply with procedural requirements in filing papers with the court but accomplishes the functional equivalent of the requirement.” Id. at 452 , 451 S.E.2d at 351 . 2023Second, the appeal will not be dismissed where the “appellant technically fails to comply with procedural requirements in filing papers with the court but accomplishes the functional equivalent of the requirement.” Id. at 452 , 451 S.E.2d at 351 . | 2 | 2019–2023 |
United States v. Louis Kovel
green
2 sentences2020See In re Bieter Co., 16 F.3d 929, 939 (8th Cir. 1994) (establishing the functional-equivalent test for federal courts in the Eighth Circuit); United States v. Kovel, 296 F.2d 918 , 921–22 (2d Cir. 1961) (establishing the Kovel doctrine for federal courts in the Second Circuit). 2020See In re Bieter Co., 16 F.3d 929, 939 (8th Cir. 1994) (establishing the functional-equivalent test for federal courts in the Eighth Circuit); United States v. Kovel, 296 F.2d 918 , 921–22 (2d Cir. 1961) (establishing the Kovel doctrine for federal courts in the Second Circuit). | 2 | 2020–2020 |
Abels v. Renfro Corp.
green
2 sentences2000Although entry of notice of appeal is jurisdictional, see Abels v. Renfro Corp., 126 N.C.App. 800 , 486 S.E.2d 735 (1997), this Court has stated that if a party technically fails to comply with a procedural requirement in filing papers with the Court, the Court may nevertheless find compliance if the party achieved the functional equivalent of the requirement, see State ex rel. 2000Although entry of notice of appeal is jurisdictional, see Abels v. Renfro Corp., 126 N.C.App. 800 , 486 S.E.2d 735 (1997), this Court has stated that if a party technically fails to comply with a procedural requirement in filing papers with the Court, the Court may nevertheless find compliance if the party achieved the functional equivalent of the requirement, see State ex rel. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
State Ex Rel. Utilities Com'n v. MCI Telecommunications Corporation
green
2 sentences2000Utilities Comm'n v. MCI, 132 N.C.App. 625 , 514 S.E.2d 276 (1999); Von Ramm v. Von Ramm, 99 N.C.App. 153 , 392 S.E.2d 422 (1990). 2000Utilities Comm'n v. MCI, 132 N.C.App. 625 , 514 S.E.2d 276 (1999); Von Ramm v. Von Ramm, 99 N.C.App. 153 , 392 S.E.2d 422 (1990). | 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.