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.
78 North Carolina opinions name it 4 courts 1969–2025 8 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 |
|---|---|---|
Weston v. Carolina Medicorp, Inc.green2 sentences2020App. 415, 417 , 438 S.E.2d 751, 753 (1994) (“According to the doctrine of the law of the case, once an appellate court has ruled on a question, that decision becomes the law - 12 - STATE V. 2020App. 415, 417 , 438 S.E.2d 751, 753 (1994) (“According to the doctrine of the law of the case, once an appellate court has ruled on a question, that decision becomes the law - 12 - STATE V. | 8 | 11 |
Hayes v. City of Wilmingtongreen2 sentences2023App. 721, 728 (2018) (citing Hayes v. City of Wilmington, 243 N.C. 525, 536 (1956)) (“Under the law-of-the-case doctrine, when an appellate court passes on a question and remands the cause for further proceedings, the questions there settled become the law of the case, both in subsequent proceedings in the trial court and on subsequent appeal, provided the same facts and the same questions which were determined in the previous appeal are involved in the second appeal.”). 2018Under the law-of-the-case doctrine, when an appellate court passes on a question and remands the cause for further proceedings, the questions there settled become the law of the case, both in subsequent proceedings in the trial court and on subsequent appeal, provided the same facts and the same questions which were determined in the previous appeal are involved in the second appeal. *729 Hayes v. City of Wilmington , 243 N.C. 525 , 536, 91 S.E.2d 673 , 681-82 (1956) (citations omitted). | 4 | 14 |
Creech Ex Rel. Creech v. Melnikgreen2 sentences2022App. 471, 473-74 , 556 S.E.2d 587, 589 (2001) (“Under the law of the case doctrine, an appellate court ruling on a question governs the resolution of that question both in subsequent proceedings in the trial court and on a subsequent appeal, provided the same facts and the same questions, which were determined in the previous appeal, are involved in the second appeal.”). ¶ 21 In the Factual and Procedural Background of Cataldo II, this Court explained that Defendant had filed an MAR on 7 July 2015 in which Defendant alleged that T.B.’s father had been accused of sexually abusing her from 2000 2022App. 471, 473-74 , 556 S.E.2d 587, 589 (2001) (“Under the law of the case doctrine, an appellate court ruling on a question governs the resolution of that question both in subsequent proceedings in the trial court and on a subsequent appeal, provided the same facts and the same questions, which were determined in the previous appeal, are involved in the second appeal.”). ¶ 21 In the Factual and Procedural Background of Cataldo II, this Court explained that Defendant had filed an MAR on 7 July 2015 in which Defendant alleged that T.B.’s father had been accused of sexually abusing her from 2000 | 4 | 10 |
Boje v. D.W.I.T., L.L.C.green2 sentences2018We have further explained that the law of the case doctrine "provides that when a party fails to appeal from a tribunal's decision that is not interlocutory, the decision below becomes the 'law of the case' and cannot be challenged in subsequent proceedings in the same case." Boje v. D.W.I.T., L.L.C. , 195 N.C. 2018To the extent that petitioner sought "reconsideration" of the first petition by his "motion in the cause," any such "reconsideration" is barred by the law of the case doctrine which "provides that when a party fails to appeal from a tribunal's decision that is not interlocutory, the decision below becomes the law of the case and cannot be challenged in subsequent proceedings in the same case." *455 Boje v. D.W.I.T., L.L.C. , 195 N.C. | 4 | 6 |
Wrenn v. Maria Parham Hospital, Inc.green2 sentences2009The law of the case doctrine applies to cases in which “a question before an appellate court has previously been answered on an earlier appeal in the same case[.]” Wrenn v. Maria Parham Hosp., Inc., 135 N.C. 2009The law of the case doctrine applies to cases in which "a question before an appellate court has previously been answered on an earlier appeal in the same case[.]" Wrenn v. Maria Parham Hosp., Inc., 135 N.C.App. 672, 678 , 522 S.E.2d 789, 792 (1999) (emphasis omitted). | 3 | 3 |
Duffer v. Royal Dodge, Inc.green2 sentences2000App. 129, 130 , 275 S.E.2d 206, 207 (1981); Sutton v. Quinerly, Sutton v. Craddock; Sutton v. Fields, 231 N.C. 669, 677 , 58 S.E.2d 709, 714 (1950) (the law of the case doctrine is the “little brother” of res judicata); 18 James W. 1999App. 129, 130 , 275 S.E.2d 206, 207 (1981); Sutton v. Quinerly, 231 N.C. 669, 677 , 58 S.E.2d 709, 714 (1950) (the law of the case doctrine is the “little brother” of res judicata,); 18 James W. | 3 | 3 |
Waters v. North Carolina Phosphate Corp.green2 sentences2000“The doctrine of law of the case does not apply to dicta, but only to points actually presented and necessary to the determination of the case.” Waters v. Phosphate Corp., 61 N.C. 1985Generally, when an appellate court decides a question and remands the case for further proceedings, the questions determined by the appellate court become the law of the case, both in subsequent proceedings in the trial court, and on appeal. [Citation omitted.] The doctrine of law of the case does not apply to dicta, but only to points actually presented and necessary to the determination of the case. [Citation omitted.] Waters v. Phosphate Corp., 61 N.C. | 3 | 3 |
Sutton v. Quinerlygreen2 sentences2000App. 129, 130 , 275 S.E.2d 206, 207 (1981); Sutton v. Quinerly, Sutton v. Craddock; Sutton v. Fields, 231 N.C. 669, 677 , 58 S.E.2d 709, 714 (1950) (the law of the case doctrine is the “little brother” of res judicata); 18 James W. 2000App. 129, 130 , 275 S.E.2d 206, 207 (1981); Sutton v. Quinerly, Sutton v. Craddock; Sutton v. Fields, 231 N.C. 669, 677 , 58 S.E.2d 709, 714 (1950) (the law of the case doctrine is the “little brother” of res judicata); 18 James W. | 3 | 3 |
United States v. Sineneng-Smithgreen2 sentences2022See United States v. Sineneng-Smith, 140 S. Ct. 1575 , 1578–89 (2020). 2022See United States v. Sineneng-Smith, 140 S. Ct. 1575 , 1578–89 (2020). | 2 | 2 |
Bank of America, N.A. v. Ricegreen2 sentences2018App. ----, ----, 780 S.E.2d 873 , 880 (2015) (citation and quotation marks omitted). 2018See Bank of America, N.A. at ----, 780 S.E.2d at 880 . | 2 | 2 |
Goetz v. NC DEPT. OF HEALTH & HUMAN SVCS.green2 sentences2016App. 421, 432 , 692 S.E.2d 395, 402-03 (2010) (“The law of the case doctrine . . . generally prohibits reconsideration of issues which have been decided by the same court, or a higher court, in a prior appeal in the same case.” (quotation marks omitted)). 2016See also Goetz v. N. Carolina Dep't of Health & Human Servs. , 203 N.C.App. 421 , 432, 692 S.E.2d 395 , 402-03 (2010) ("The law of the case doctrine ... generally prohibits reconsideration of issues which have been decided by the same court, *355 or a higher court, in a prior appeal in the same case." (quotation marks omitted)). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Boydgreen2 sentences2016According to the law of the case doctrine, " 'once an appellate court has ruled on a question, that decision becomes the law of the case and governs the question both in subsequent proceedings in a trial court and on subsequent appeal.' " State v. Boyd, 148 N.C.App. 304 , 308, 559 S.E.2d 1 , 3 (2002) (quoting Weston v. Carolina Medicorp, Inc., 113 N.C.App. 415 , 417, 438 S.E.2d 751 , 753 (1994) ). 2016According to the law of the case doctrine, " 'once an appellate court has ruled on a question, that decision becomes the law of the case and governs the question both in subsequent proceedings in a trial court and on subsequent appeal.' " State v. Boyd, 148 N.C.App. 304 , 308, 559 S.E.2d 1 , 3 (2002) (quoting Weston v. Carolina Medicorp, Inc., 113 N.C.App. 415 , 417, 438 S.E.2d 751 , 753 (1994) ). | 2 | 2 |
Wellons v. Whitegreen2 sentences2014App._,_, 748 S.E.2d 709, 720 (2013) (“The law of the case doctrine provides that when a party fails to appeal that order, the decision below becomes the law of the case and cannot be challenged in subsequent proceedings in the same case.” (citation, quotation marks, and brackets omitted)). 2014App._,_, 748 S.E.2d 709, 720 (2013) (“The law of the case doctrine provides that when a party fails to appeal that order, the decision below becomes the law of the case and cannot be challenged in subsequent proceedings in the same case.” (citation, quotation marks, and brackets omitted)). | 2 | 2 |
North Carolina National Bank v. Virginia Carolina Buildersgreen2 sentences2016The State responded that, by issuing the writ, the court had already ruled that it had jurisdiction, and that it would violate the law of the case doctrine articulated in North Carolina National Bank v. Virginia Carolina Builders, 307 N.C. 563 , 299 S.E.2d 629 (1983), if another Court of Appeals panel overruled that decision. 2016The State responded that, by issuing the writ, the court had already ruled that it had jurisdiction, and that it would violate the law of the case doctrine articulated in North Carolina National Bank v. Virginia Carolina Builders, 307 N.C. 563 , 299 S.E.2d 629 (1983), if another Court of Appeals panel overruled that decision. | 1 | 4 |
Kanipe v. Lane Upholstery, Hickory Tavern Furniture Co.green2 sentences2010“Pursuant to the law of the case doctrine, an appellate court ruling on a question governs the resolution of that question both in subsequent proceedings in the trial court and on a subsequent appeal, provided the same facts and the same questions, which were determined in the previous appeal, are involved in the second appeal.” Kanipe v. Lane Upholstery, Hickory Tavern Furniture Co., 151 N.C. *330 App. 478, 484-85, 566 S.E.2d 167, 171 (citation and quotation marks omitted), disc. review denied and disc. review dismissed, 356 N.C. 303 , 570 S.E.2d 724 , petition for reconsideration dismissed, 2009The law of the case doctrine applies only to “points actually presented and necessary for the determination of the case and not to dicta.” Kanipe v. Lane Upholstery, 151 N.C. | 1 | 4 |
Tennessee-Carolina Transportation, Inc. v. Strick Corp.green2 sentences2010Our State Supreme Court has stated that "[w]hen an appellate court passes on questions and remands the case for further proceedings to the trial court, the questions therein actually presented and necessarily involved in determining the case and the decision on those questions become the law of the case, both in subsequent proceedings in the trial court and on a subsequent appeal, provided the same facts and the same questions, which were determined in the previous appeal, are involved in the second appeal." Tennessee-Carolina Transportation, Inc. v. Strick Corp., 286 N.C. 235, 239 , 210 S.E.2 2010Our State Supreme Court has stated that "[w]hen an appellate court passes on questions and remands the case for further proceedings to the trial court, the questions therein actually presented and necessarily involved in determining the case and the decision on those questions become the law of the case, both in subsequent proceedings in the trial court and on a subsequent appeal, provided the same facts and the same questions, which were determined in the previous appeal, are involved in the second appeal." Tennessee-Carolina Transportation, Inc. v. Strick Corp., 286 N.C. 235, 239 , 210 S.E.2 | 1 | 4 |
Goetz v. North Carolina Department of Health & Human Servicesgreen2 sentences2018Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 203 N.C. 2016See also Goetz v. N. Carolina Dep't of Health & Human Servs. , 203 N.C.App. 421 , 432, 692 S.E.2d 395 , 402-03 (2010) ("The law of the case doctrine ... generally prohibits reconsideration of issues which have been decided by the same court, *355 or a higher court, in a prior appeal in the same case." (quotation marks omitted)). | 1 | 2 |
Condellone v. Condellonegreen2 sentences2015The doctrine of law of the case does not apply to dicta, but only to points actually presented and necessary to the determination of the case." Condellone v. Condellone, 137 N.C.App. 547 , 551, 528 S.E.2d 639 , 642 (internal citations and quotation marks omitted), disc. review denied, 352 N.C. 672 , 545 S.E.2d 420 (2000). 2015The doctrine of law of the case does not apply to dicta, but only to points actually presented and necessary to the determination of the case." Condellone v. Condellone, 137 N.C.App. 547 , 551, 528 S.E.2d 639 , 642 (internal citations and quotation marks omitted), disc. review denied, 352 N.C. 672 , 545 S.E.2d 420 (2000). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Lewisgreen2 sentences2015Notably, for purposes of the present appeal, "the law of the case doctrine does not apply when the evidence presented at a subsequent proceeding is different from that presented on a former appeal." State v. Lewis, 365 N.C. 488 , 505, 724 S.E.2d 492 , 503 (2012). 2015Notably, for purposes of the present appeal, "the law of the case doctrine does not apply when the evidence presented at a subsequent proceeding is different from that presented on a former appeal." State v. Lewis, 365 N.C. 488 , 505, 724 S.E.2d 492 , 503 (2012). | 1 | 2 |
Southland Associates Realtors, Inc. v. Minergreen2 sentences1999Southland Ass’n Realtors v. Miner, 73 N.C. 1991See Southland Associates Realtors, Inc. v. Miner, 73 N.C.App. 319 , 326 S.E.2d 107 (1985). | 1 | 2 |
| King v. Grindstaffgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Calloway v. Ford Motor Companygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Smithwick v. Crutchfieldgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Premier, Inc. v. Petersongreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Paulgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Robinson v. Gardnergreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Masongreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Dortongreen | 1 | 1 |
| Collins v. Simmsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| In Re the Appeal From the Civil Penaltygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Sloan v. Miller Building Corp.green | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Waters v. North Carolina Phosphate Corp.
green
2 sentences2000App. 79, 84 , 300 S.E.2d 415, 418 (1983) (citation omitted), modified and aff'd, 310 N.C. 438 , 312 S.E.2d 428 (1984). 2000App. 79, 84 , 300 S.E.2d 415, 418 (1983) (citation omitted), modified and aff'd, 310 N.C. 438 , 312 S.E.2d 428 (1984). | 3 | 1985–2000 |
Royster v. McNamara
green
2 sentences2025Although the law-of-the-case doctrine is similar to issue preclusion in that it prevents re-litigation of an issue, see Royster, 218 N.C. 2025App. at 552 , 551 S.E.2d at 523–24 (emphasis added), while the law-of-the-case doctrine prevents re-litigation of an issue in the same lawsuit, see Royster, 218 N.C. | 2 | 2025–2025 |
Goldston v. State
green
2 sentences2020In North Carolina courts, the law of the case applies only to issues that were decided in the former proceeding, whether explicitly or by necessary implication, but not to questions which might have been decided but were not. “[T]he doctrine of the law of the case contemplates only such points as are actually presented and necessarily involved in determining the case.” Goldston v. State, 199 N.C. 2020In North Carolina courts, the law of the case applies only to issues that were decided in the former proceeding, whether explicitly or by necessary implication, but not to questions which might have been decided but were not. “[T]he doctrine of the law of the case contemplates only such points as are actually presented and necessarily involved in determining the case.” Goldston v. State, 199 N.C. | 2 | 2020–2020 |
Deadwood, Inc. v. N.C. Dep't of Revenue
neutral
2 sentences2015App. 471, 473-74 , 556 S.E.2d 587, 589 (2001) (“Under the law of the case doctrine, an appellate court ruling on a question governs the resolution of that question both in subsequent proceedings in the trial court and on a subsequent appeal, provided the same facts and the same questions, which were determined in the previous appeal, are involved in the second appeal.”), disc. review denied, 355 N.C. 490 , 561 S.E.2d 498 , 498-99 (2002). 2008App. 471 , 556 S.E.2d 587 (2001) (discussing the law of the case doctrine), disc. review denied, 355 N.C. 490 , 561 S.E.2d 498 , reconsideration denied, 355 N.C. 747 , 565 S.E.2d 194 (2002). | 2 | 2008–2015 |
Creech v. Melnik
green
2 sentences2015App. 471, 473-74 , 556 S.E.2d 587, 589 (2001) (“Under the law of the case doctrine, an appellate court ruling on a question governs the resolution of that question both in subsequent proceedings in the trial court and on a subsequent appeal, provided the same facts and the same questions, which were determined in the previous appeal, are involved in the second appeal.”), disc. review denied, 355 N.C. 490 , 561 S.E.2d 498 , 498-99 (2002). 2008App. 471 , 556 S.E.2d 587 (2001) (discussing the law of the case doctrine), disc. review denied, 355 N.C. 490 , 561 S.E.2d 498 , reconsideration denied, 355 N.C. 747 , 565 S.E.2d 194 (2002). | 2 | 2008–2015 |
Kanipe v. Lane Upholstery
green
2 sentences2010“Pursuant to the law of the case doctrine, an appellate court ruling on a question governs the resolution of that question both in subsequent proceedings in the trial court and on a subsequent appeal, provided the same facts and the same questions, which were determined in the previous appeal, are involved in the second appeal.” Kanipe v. Lane Upholstery, Hickory Tavern Furniture Co., 151 N.C. *330 App. 478, 484-85, 566 S.E.2d 167, 171 (citation and quotation marks omitted), disc. review denied and disc. review dismissed, 356 N.C. 303 , 570 S.E.2d 724 , petition for reconsideration dismissed, 2009App. 478, 485 , 566 S.E.2d 167, 171 , disc. review denied, disc. review dismissed, 356 N.C. 303 , 570 S.E.2d 724 -25, petition for reconsideration dismissed, 356 N.C. 437 , 572 S.E.2d 784 (2002). | 2 | 2009–2010 |
Jenkins v. Piedmont Aviation Servs.
green
2 sentences2010“Pursuant to the law of the case doctrine, an appellate court ruling on a question governs the resolution of that question both in subsequent proceedings in the trial court and on a subsequent appeal, provided the same facts and the same questions, which were determined in the previous appeal, are involved in the second appeal.” Kanipe v. Lane Upholstery, Hickory Tavern Furniture Co., 151 N.C. *330 App. 478, 484-85, 566 S.E.2d 167, 171 (citation and quotation marks omitted), disc. review denied and disc. review dismissed, 356 N.C. 303 , 570 S.E.2d 724 , petition for reconsideration dismissed, 2009App. 478, 485 , 566 S.E.2d 167, 171 , disc. review denied, disc. review dismissed, 356 N.C. 303 , 570 S.E.2d 724 -25, petition for reconsideration dismissed, 356 N.C. 437 , 572 S.E.2d 784 (2002). | 2 | 2009–2010 |
Kanipe v. Lane Upholstery
neutral
2 sentences2010“Pursuant to the law of the case doctrine, an appellate court ruling on a question governs the resolution of that question both in subsequent proceedings in the trial court and on a subsequent appeal, provided the same facts and the same questions, which were determined in the previous appeal, are involved in the second appeal.” Kanipe v. Lane Upholstery, Hickory Tavern Furniture Co., 151 N.C. *330 App. 478, 484-85, 566 S.E.2d 167, 171 (citation and quotation marks omitted), disc. review denied and disc. review dismissed, 356 N.C. 303 , 570 S.E.2d 724 , petition for reconsideration dismissed, 2009App. 478, 485 , 566 S.E.2d 167, 171 , disc. review denied, disc. review dismissed, 356 N.C. 303 , 570 S.E.2d 724 -25, petition for reconsideration dismissed, 356 N.C. 437 , 572 S.E.2d 784 (2002). | 2 | 2009–2010 |
Creech v. Melnik
green
2 sentences2008App. 471 , 556 S.E.2d 587 (2001) (discussing the law of the case doctrine), disc. review denied, 355 N.C. 490 , 561 S.E.2d 498 , reconsideration denied, 355 N.C. 747 , 565 S.E.2d 194 (2002). 2008App. 471 , 556 S.E.2d 587 (2001) (discussing the law of the case doctrine), disc. review denied, 355 N.C. 490 , 561 S.E.2d 498 , reconsideration denied, 355 N.C. 747 , 565 S.E.2d 194 (2002). | 2 | 2008–2008 |
State v. Safrit
green
2 sentences2025App. at 529–30, 723 S.E.2d at 129 , the two doctrines differ in one key respect: issue preclusion prevents re-litigation in a future lawsuit, see Safrit, 145 N.C. 2025App. at 552 , 551 S.E.2d at 523–24 (emphasis added), while the law-of-the-case doctrine prevents re-litigation of an issue in the same lawsuit, see Royster, 218 N.C. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| Joyner v. Rocky Mount Mills green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| State v. Macon green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| Hedgepeth v. Parkers Landing Prop. Owners Ass'n, Inc. green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| Bank of America, N.A. v. Rice green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| Christenbury Surgery Ctr. v. N.C. Dep't of Health & Human Servs. neutral | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| Condellone v. Condellone neutral | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| Bissette v. Auto-Owners Insurance green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| Jones v. Keller green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| Thrasher v. Thrasher green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| GRANTHAM EX REL. TRUST COMPANY OF STERNE, AGEE & LEACH, INC. v. Crawford neutral | 1 | 2011–2011 |
| Goetz v. NC DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES neutral | 1 | 2011–2011 |
| Wrenn v. Maria Parham Hosp., Inc. neutral | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| State v. Williams green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| State v. Keitt green | 1 | 2004–2004 |
| State v. Jackson green | 1 | 1997–1997 |
| State v. Mitchell green | 1 | 1997–1997 |
| Sjostrom v. Sproule green | 1 | 1974–1974 |
| Pool v. Commonwealth neutral | 1 | 1969–1969 |
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.