11 North Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1903–2008 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Kirbygreen2 sentences2008Our Court recently recognized that “[b]ecause of the requirement of confidentiality, it is well established that the marital privilege does not apply to communications made within the known hearing of a third party.” State v. Kirby, 187 N.C. 2008App. 367, 372 , 653 S.E.2d 174, 178 (2007). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Gladdengreen1 sentence2007See, e.g., State v. Gladden, 168 N.C. | 1 | 1 |
Emerson v. Slatergreen2 sentences1976This rule is restated in Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Foil, 284 N.C. 740, 748 , 202 S.E. 2d 591, 597 (1974), as follows: “‘ . . . [W]henever the main purpose and the object of the promisor is not to answer for another, but to sub-serve some pecuniary or business purpose of his own, involving either a benefit to himself, or damage to the other contracting party, his promise is not within the statute, although it may be in form a promise to pay the debt of another, and although the performance of it may incidentally have the effect of extinguishing that liability. . . .’ ” [Quoting Emerson v. 1976This rule is restated in Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Foil, 284 N.C. 740, 748 , 202 S.E. 2d 591, 597 (1974), as follows: “‘ . . . [W]henever the main purpose and the object of the promisor is not to answer for another, but to sub-serve some pecuniary or business purpose of his own, involving either a benefit to himself, or damage to the other contracting party, his promise is not within the statute, although it may be in form a promise to pay the debt of another, and although the performance of it may incidentally have the effect of extinguishing that liability. . . .’ ” [Quoting Emerson v. | 1 | 1 |
Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Foilgreen2 sentences1976This rule is restated in Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Foil, 284 N.C. 740, 748 , 202 S.E. 2d 591, 597 (1974), as follows: “‘ . . . [W]henever the main purpose and the object of the promisor is not to answer for another, but to sub-serve some pecuniary or business purpose of his own, involving either a benefit to himself, or damage to the other contracting party, his promise is not within the statute, although it may be in form a promise to pay the debt of another, and although the performance of it may incidentally have the effect of extinguishing that liability. . . .’ ” [Quoting Emerson v. 1976This rule is restated in Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Foil, 284 N.C. 740, 748 , 202 S.E. 2d 591, 597 (1974), as follows: “‘ . . . [W]henever the main purpose and the object of the promisor is not to answer for another, but to sub-serve some pecuniary or business purpose of his own, involving either a benefit to himself, or damage to the other contracting party, his promise is not within the statute, although it may be in form a promise to pay the debt of another, and although the performance of it may incidentally have the effect of extinguishing that liability. . . .’ ” [Quoting Emerson v. | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Byrd v. Express Co.
green
2 sentences1922Byrd v. Express Co., 139 N. C., 273 . 1922Byrd v. Express Co. , 139 N.C. 273 . | 2 | 1922–1922 |
Insurance Co. v. Railroad
neutral
2 sentences1971Sims v. Charlotte Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., 257 N.C. 32 , 125 S.E.2d 326 ; Insurance Co. v. Seaboard Air Line Railroad, 138 N.C. 42 , 50 S.E. 452 ; Stansbury, North Carolina Evidence, 2d Ed., §§ 144, 155; Wigmore on Evidence, 3d Ed., § 1530. 1971Sims v. Charlotte Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., 257 N.C. 32 , 125 S.E.2d 326 ; Insurance Co. v. Seaboard Air Line Railroad, 138 N.C. 42 , 50 S.E. 452 ; Stansbury, North Carolina Evidence, 2d Ed., §§ 144, 155; Wigmore on Evidence, 3d Ed., § 1530. | 1 | 1971–1971 |
Sims ex rel. Sims v. Charlotte Liberty Mutual Insurance
green
2 sentences1971Sims v. Charlotte Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., 257 N.C. 32 , 125 S.E.2d 326 ; Insurance Co. v. Seaboard Air Line Railroad, 138 N.C. 42 , 50 S.E. 452 ; Stansbury, North Carolina Evidence, 2d Ed., §§ 144, 155; Wigmore on Evidence, 3d Ed., § 1530. 1971Sims v. Insurance Co., 257 N.C. 32 , 125 S.E. 2d 326 ; Insurance Co. v. Railroad, 138 N.C. 42 , 50 S.E. 452 ; Stansbury, North Carolina Evidence, 2d Ed, §§ 144, 155; Wigmore on Evidence, 3d Ed, § 1530. | 1 | 1971–1971 |
Sims v. Charlotte Liberty Mutual Insurance Co.
green
2 sentences1971Sims v. Charlotte Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., 257 N.C. 32 , 125 S.E.2d 326 ; Insurance Co. v. Seaboard Air Line Railroad, 138 N.C. 42 , 50 S.E. 452 ; Stansbury, North Carolina Evidence, 2d Ed., §§ 144, 155; Wigmore on Evidence, 3d Ed., § 1530. 1971Sims v. Insurance Co., 257 N.C. 32 , 125 S.E. 2d 326 ; Insurance Co. v. Railroad, 138 N.C. 42 , 50 S.E. 452 ; Stansbury, North Carolina Evidence, 2d Ed, §§ 144, 155; Wigmore on Evidence, 3d Ed, § 1530. | 1 | 1971–1971 |
Johnson v. Heath
green
2 sentences1956Johnson v. Heath, 240 N.C. 255 , 81 S.E. 2d 657 . 1956Johnson v. Heath, 240 N.C. 255 , 81 S.E. 2d 657 . | 1 | 1956–1956 |
Smith v. . R. R.
neutral
1 sentence1923R., 147 N. C., 603 , the Court said: “The law is that the violation of a known rule of the company made for an employee’s protection and safety, when the proximate cause of such employee’s injury, will usually bar a recovery. | 1 | 1923–1923 |
Commissioners v. . Means
neutral
1 sentence1914In Winston v. Taylor, 99 N. C., 213 , tbe Court says: “It is also clear tbat tbe authorities of tbe town can impose no taxes except as authorized by its charter.” “Tbe commissioners of an incorporated town have no right to impose any taxes but such as are expressly authorized by act of incorporation.” Asheville v. Means, 29 N. C., 406 . | 1 | 1914–1914 |
Perry v. Tozer
green
1 sentence1906In Perry v. Tozer, 90 Minn., 431 , it is said.: “Authorities of the highest respectability hold that the violation of a statute prohibiting the employment of a child in a hazardous occupation, when such employment is prohibited by law, establishes a right to recover for negligence; hence, in such cases liability is to be presumed from the employment in disobedience of law. * * * Unless we can say that the statute has no effect in a suit for damages when the law has been violated, we are required to hold that the employment which the legislature positively forbids furnishes evidence tending to | 1 | 1906–1906 |
President of the Baltimore & Yorktown Turnpike Road v. Cason
green
1 sentence1903Turnpike Road v. Cason, 72 Md., 377. | 1 | 1903–1903 |
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.