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 1919–2026 5 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 |
|---|---|---|
Trivette v. Yountgreen1 sentence2026Cf. Trivette v. Yount, 366 N.C. 303, 310 (2012) (holding that “the trial court correctly denied [the] defendant’s Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss on the grounds that the exclusivity provision of the [Workers’ Compensation] Act deprived the trial court of jurisdiction” (emphasis added)); but see Bowden v. Young, 239 N.C. | 1 | 1 |
Outlaw v. Johnsongreen2 sentences2025By failing to give Plaintiff’s requested instruction and instead instructing the jury that joint and several liability may apply to injury that results only from concurring negligent acts or omissions, the trial court’s given instruction “failed to encompass the substance of the law requested.” Id. 2025Plaintiff’s requested instruction was correct as a matter of law and was supported by the evidence, and the trial court’s given instruction “failed to encompass the substance of the law requested.” Outlaw, 190 N.C. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Helmsgreen1 sentence2025See State v. Helms, 322 N.C. 315, 319 (1988). | 1 | 1 |
Matthew Dixon v. Coburg Dairy, Incorporated, Equal Employment Advisory Council, Amicus Curiaegreen1 sentence2021See id. at 1344–45; see also Dixon v. Coburg Dairy, Inc., 369 F.3d 811, 816 (4th Cir. 2004) (en banc) (“A plaintiff’s right to relief for a given claim necessarily depends on a question of federal law only when every legal theory supporting the claim requires resolution of a federal issue.”). 19. | 1 | 1 |
Neurorepair, Inc. v. Nath Law Groupgreen1 sentence2021See id. at 1344–45; see also Dixon v. Coburg Dairy, Inc., 369 F.3d 811, 816 (4th Cir. 2004) (en banc) (“A plaintiff’s right to relief for a given claim necessarily depends on a question of federal law only when every legal theory supporting the claim requires resolution of a federal issue.”). 19. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Cartergreen2 sentences2014See State v. Carter, 366 N.C. 496, 500 , 739 S.E.2d 548, 552 (2013) (stating that there was no plain error where the “[d]efendant has not shown that ‘the jury probably would have returned a different verdict’ if the trial court had provided the . . . instruction”) (internal citation omitted). 2014See State v. Carter, 366 N.C. 496, 500 , 739 S.E.2d 548, 552 (2013) (stating that there was no plain error where the “[d]efendant has not shown that ‘the jury probably would have returned a different verdict’ if the trial court had provided the . . . instruction”) (internal citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Bensongreen2 sentences1994See State v. Benson, 323 N.C. 318, 327 , 372 S.E.2d 517, 522 (1988) (no error when trial court fails to submit a mitigating circumstance that was subsumed into another mitigating circumstances). 1994See State v. Benson, 323 N.C. 318, 327 , 372 S.E.2d 517, 522 (1988) (no error when trial court fails to submit a mitigating circumstance that was subsumed into another mitigating circumstances). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Allenyellow2 sentences1997Hence, “the spirit and purpose of Rule 10(b)(2) are not met.” State v. Allen, 339 N.C. 545, 554-55 , 453 S.E.2d 150, 155 (1995), overruled by State v. Gaines, 345 N.C. 647 , 483 S.E.2d 396 (1997). 1997Hence, “the spirit and purpose of Rule 10(b)(2) are not met.” State v. Allen, 339 N.C. 545, 554-55 , 453 S.E.2d 150, 155 (1995), overruled by State v. Gaines, 345 N.C. 647 , 483 S.E.2d 396 (1997). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Keel
green
1 sentence2025Defendant relies on three cases to support his argument that the State’s requested embezzlement instruction was preserved: State v. Keel, 333 N.C. 52 (1992); State v. Barrow, 216 N.C. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Barrow
green
2 sentences2025Defendant relies on three cases to support his argument that the State’s requested embezzlement instruction was preserved: State v. Keel, 333 N.C. 52 (1992); State v. Barrow, 216 N.C. 2025Barrow, 216 N.C. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Chang Yang
green
1 sentence2017App. 755 , 760, 622 S.E.2d 632 , 635 (2005) (holding defendant was barred from challenging an amendment to a pattern jury instruction that defense counsel helped formulate and did not object to the final given instruction). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Dogwood Development & Management Co. v. White Oak Transport Co.
green
1 sentence2008App. at-, 645 S.E.2d at 214-16 . | 1 | 2008–2008 |
State v. Gaines
green
2 sentences1997Hence, “the spirit and purpose of Rule 10(b)(2) are not met.” State v. Allen, 339 N.C. 545, 554-55 , 453 S.E.2d 150, 155 (1995), overruled by State v. Gaines, 345 N.C. 647 , 483 S.E.2d 396 (1997). 1997Hence, “the spirit and purpose of Rule 10(b)(2) are not met.” State v. Allen, 339 N.C. 545, 554-55 , 453 S.E.2d 150, 155 (1995), overruled by State v. Gaines, 345 N.C. 647 , 483 S.E.2d 396 (1997). | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Newton v. . Clark
neutral
1 sentence1919The principle appearing in Fuller v. Jenkins is in direct antagonism to the law of this State, as established by a current of decisions, well nigh from the beginning of the Court, certainly as far back as Streator v. Jones , 10 N.C. 433 , in 1824, one of them, Porter v. White , 128 N.C. 42 , just one year prior to the case in question and fully reaffirmed in the later decision of Newton v. Clark, supra; all holding that in order to change a deed into a mortgage it must be alleged and proved that the clause of redemption was omitted by mistake, etc. The case does not, in terms, purport to lay d | 1 | 1919–1919 |
Porter v. White.
neutral
1 sentence1919The principle appearing in Fuller v. Jenkins is in direct antagonism to the law of this State, as established by a current of decisions, well nigh from the beginning of the Court, certainly as far back as Streator v. Jones , 10 N.C. 433 , in 1824, one of them, Porter v. White , 128 N.C. 42 , just one year prior to the case in question and fully reaffirmed in the later decision of Newton v. Clark, supra; all holding that in order to change a deed into a mortgage it must be alleged and proved that the clause of redemption was omitted by mistake, etc. The case does not, in terms, purport to lay d | 1 | 1919–1919 |
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.