signature requirement (North Carolina) · Go Syfert
← North Carolina issues

signature requirement in North Carolina

11 North Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1940–2025 4 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.

Followed or applied (5)

CaseFollowedCited
In re L.B.green
ncctapp · 2007 · cited in 2 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2019–2025
2 sentences

2025Id.; see also In re L.B., 187 N.C.

2019See In re L.B. , 187 N.C.

22
Hummer v. Pulley, Watson, King & Lischer, P.A.green
ncctapp · 2000 · cited in 2 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2008–2010
2 sentences

2010App. ___, ___, 670 S.E.2d 282, 285 (2008); see Hummer v. Pulley, Watson, King & Lischer, P.A., 140 N.C.

2008See Hummer v. Pulley, Watson, King & Lischer, P.A., 140 N.C.

22
In Re I.T.P-L.green
ncctapp · 2008 · cited in 2 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2009–2010
2 sentences

2010App. ___, ___, 670 S.E.2d 282, 285 (2008); see Hummer v. Pulley, Watson, King & Lischer, P.A., 140 N.C.

2009App. ___, ___, 670 S.E.2d 282, 285 (2008).

22
Powell v. City of Newtongreen
ncctapp · 2009 · cited in 1 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2024–2024
1 sentence

2024See id. at 348 , 684 S.E.2d at 60 .

11
Brooks v. Hackneygreen
nc · 1991 · cited in 1 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2010–2010
2 sentences

2010However, equitable doctrines such as estoppel "serve[ ] to moderate the unjust results that would follow from the unbending application of common law rules and statutes." Brooks v. Hackney, 329 N.C. 166, 173 , 404 S.E.2d 854, 859 (1991).

2010However, equitable doctrines such as estoppel "serve[ ] to moderate the unjust results that would follow from the unbending application of common law rules and statutes." Brooks v. Hackney, 329 N.C. 166, 173 , 404 S.E.2d 854, 859 (1991).

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in North Carolina. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (5)

CaseCitedYears
In re L.B. green
nc · 2008
2 sentences

2025App. 326, 332 , 653 S.E.2d 240 (2007), aff’d per curiam, 362 N.C. 507 , 666 S.E.2d 751 (2008), we conclude that the decision by [the] respondent-father’s trial counsel to attach [the] respondent-father’s letter to the notice of appeal resulted in substantial compliance with the signature requirement delineated in N.C.G.S. § 7B-1001(c) and N.C.R.

2021App. 326, 332 (2007), aff’d per curiam, 362 N.C. 507 (2008), we conclude that the decision by respondent-father’s trial counsel to attach respondent-father’s letter to the notice of appeal resulted in substantial compliance with the signature requirement delineated in N.C.G.S. § 7B-1001(c) and N.C.R.

32021–2025
Hughes v. RIVERA-ORTIZ green
nc · 2008
1 sentence

2025App. 326, 332 , 653 S.E.2d 240 (2007), aff’d per curiam, 362 N.C. 507 , 666 S.E.2d 751 (2008), we conclude that the decision by [the] respondent-father’s trial counsel to attach [the] respondent-father’s letter to the notice of appeal resulted in substantial compliance with the signature requirement delineated in N.C.G.S. § 7B-1001(c) and N.C.R.

12025–2025
In Re LB green
ncctapp · 2007
1 sentence

2025App. 326, 332 , 653 S.E.2d 240 (2007), aff’d per curiam, 362 N.C. 507 , 666 S.E.2d 751 (2008), we conclude that the decision by [the] respondent-father’s trial counsel to attach [the] respondent-father’s letter to the notice of appeal resulted in substantial compliance with the signature requirement delineated in N.C.G.S. § 7B-1001(c) and N.C.R.

12025–2025
Rucker v. First Union National Bank green
ncctapp · 1990
1 sentence

2004Rucker, 98 N.C.

12004–2004
Black v. Chase neutral
iowa · 1909
1 sentence

1940In Black v. Chase, 145 Iowa, 715 (720), it is said: “The signature to the waiver, dated, etc., is prima facie evidence of the service.

11940–1940

Statutes the citing opinions construe

NC § N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-1001 (6) NC § N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-1111 (6) NC § N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-1109 (3)

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.

Where else courts name it

IL 38 (1941–2025) PA 36 (1982–2026) CA 27 (1969–2025) TX 25 (1948–2026) MO 22 (1982–2023) NY 13 (1928–2025) CT 13 (1983–2022) NC 11 (1940–2025) OH 11 (1991–2025) MD 11 (1914–2022) WA 11 (1973–2025) IN 10 (1913–2015) TN 10 (2000–2026) GA 9 (1907–2023) AL 9 (1985–2003) AZ 9 (1991–2022) AR 8 (1983–2016) MI 8 (1970–2023) ID 7 (1978–2023) CO 7 (2002–2025) MN 7 (1981–2016) IA 7 (1909–2025) KY 7 (1961–2026) WI 6 (1980–2020) UT 4 (2011–2024) OR 4 (1984–2023) VA 4 (2001–2023) MA 4 (1982–2024) AK 3 (1982–2021) LA 3 (1989–2024) SD 3 (2011–2026) NM 3 (1995–2012) WV 3 (1992–2019) FL 3 (1994–2009) OK 3 (1917–2000) NJ 2 (2003–2020) MT 2 (1984–2002) KS 2 (2003–2024) MS 2 (2017–2018) NE 2 (1995–1997)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check