certainty standard (North Carolina) · Go Syfert
← North Carolina issues

certainty standard in North Carolina

10 North Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1926–2023 1 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 (3)

CaseFollowedCited
Woodson v. Rowlandgreen
nc · 1991 · cited in 5 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 1994–2023
2 sentences

2013In reversing the Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court noted that on summary judgment the plaintiff need only forecast sufficient evidence “to show that there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether [the president’s] conduct satisfies the substantial certainty standard[.]” Id. at 345 , 407 S.E.2d at 231 .

2013In reversing the Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court noted that on summary judgment the plaintiff need only forecast sufficient evidence “to show that there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether [the president’s] conduct satisfies the substantial certainty standard[.]” Id. at 345 , 407 S.E.2d at 231 .

15
Whitaker v. Town of Scotland Neckgreen
nc · 2003 · cited in 1 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2023–2023
2 sentences

2023However, in 2003, four years after Wiggins and eight years after Arroyo, our Supreme Court reversed a decision of our Court in which we allowed a plaintiff’s Woodson claim to proceed, holding that “the six-factor test created by the Court of Appeals in Wiggins misapprehends the narrowness of the substantial certainty standard set forth in Woodard.” Whitaker, 357 N.C. at 555-56 , 597 S.E.2d at 667 .

2023However, in 2003, four years after Wiggins and eight years after Arroyo, our Supreme Court reversed a decision of our Court in which we allowed a plaintiff’s Woodson claim to proceed, holding that “the six-factor test created by the Court of Appeals in Wiggins misapprehends the narrowness of the substantial certainty standard set forth in Woodard.” Whitaker, 357 N.C. at 555-56 , 597 S.E.2d at 667 .

11
In Re the Appeal From the Civil Penaltygreen
nc · 1989 · cited in 1 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 1995–1995
2 sentences

1995Matter Of Appeal From Civil Penalty, 324 N.C. 373, 384 , 379 S.E.2d 30, 37 (1989) (stating that a panel of the Court of Appeals is bound by a prior panel).

1995Matter Of Appeal From Civil Penalty, 324 N.C. 373, 384 , 379 S.E.2d 30, 37 (1989) (stating that a panel of the Court of Appeals is bound by a prior panel).

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 (7)

CaseCitedYears
Powell v. S & G PRESTRESS CO. green
ncctapp · 1994
1 sentence

1995App. 319 , 442 S.E.2d 143 (1994), this Court stated that the type of misconduct exhibited in the following example satisfied the substantial certainty standard set forth in Woodson .

11995–1995
Pendergrass v. Card Care, Inc. green
nc · 1993
2 sentences

1994In finding that the allegations were insufficient to meet the substantial certainty standard for employers, the Court opined that “[t]he conduct must be so egregious as to be tantamount to an intentional tort.” Id. at 239 , 424 S.E.2d at 395 .

1994In finding that the allegations were insufficient to meet the substantial certainty standard for employers, the Court opined that “[t]he conduct must be so egregious as to be tantamount to an intentional tort.” Id. at 239 , 424 S.E.2d at 395 .

11994–1994
Bazley v. Tortorich green
la · 1981
2 sentences

1991At least two other states, Louisiana and South Dakota, continue to apply the substantial certainty standard adopted by their judiciaries, Bazley v. Tortorich, 397 So.2d 475 (La.); VerBouwens v. Hamm Wood Products, 334 N.W.2d 874 (S.D.), without legislative modification.

1991At least two other states, Louisiana and South Dakota, continue to apply the substantial certainty standard adopted by their judiciaries, Bazley v. Tortorich, 397 So. 2d 475 (La.); VerBouwens v. Hamm Wood Products, 334 N.W.2d 874 (S.D.), without legislative modification.

11991–1991
VerBouwens v. Hamm Wood Products green
sd · 1983
2 sentences

1991At least two other states, Louisiana and South Dakota, continue to apply the substantial certainty standard adopted by their judiciaries, Bazley v. Tortorich, 397 So.2d 475 (La.); VerBouwens v. Hamm Wood Products, 334 N.W.2d 874 (S.D.), without legislative modification.

1991At least two other states, Louisiana and South Dakota, continue to apply the substantial certainty standard adopted by their judiciaries, Bazley v. Tortorich, 397 So. 2d 475 (La.); VerBouwens v. Hamm Wood Products, 334 N.W.2d 874 (S.D.), without legislative modification.

11991–1991
Serna v. Statewide Contractors, Inc. green
arizctapp · 1967
2 sentences

1991In Beauchamp v. Dow Chemical Co., 427 Mich. 1 , 398 N.W.2d 882 , the Michigan Supreme Court discussed the trench cave-in case of Serna v. Statewide Contractors, 6 Ariz.App. 12 , 429 P.2d 504 (1967).

1991In Beauchamp v. Dow Chemical Co., 427 Mich. 1 , 398 N.W.2d 882 , the Michigan Supreme Court discussed the trench cave-in case of Serna v. Statewide Contractors, 6 Ariz.App. 12 , 429 P.2d 504 (1967).

11991–1991
Beauchamp v. Dow Chemical Co. green
mich · 1986
2 sentences

1991In Beauchamp v. Dow Chemical Co., 427 Mich. 1 , 398 N.W.2d 882 , the Michigan Supreme Court discussed the trench cave-in case of Serna v. Statewide Contractors, 6 Ariz.App. 12 , 429 P.2d 504 (1967).

1991In Beauchamp v. Dow Chemical Co., 427 Mich. 1 , 398 N.W.2d 882 , the Michigan Supreme Court discussed the trench cave-in case of Serna v. Statewide Contractors, 6 Ariz.App. 12 , 429 P.2d 504 (1967).

11991–1991
Long v. U. S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co. green
nc · 1919
1 sentence

1926Walker, J., in Long v. Guaranty Co., 178 N. C., 503 , speaking of the distinction between cancellation or rescission and reformation of a written instrument, says: “A noted text writer says that courts of equity do not grant the high remedy of reformation upon a probability, or even upon a mere preponderance of evidence, but only upon a certainty of error.

11926–1926

Statutes the citing opinions construe

NC § N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1 (6) NC § N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-10.1 (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

CA 40 (1983–2025) CT 37 (1993–2020) MI 29 (1945–2026) NY 24 (1915–2013) NJ 19 (1934–2024) ND 17 (1912–2019) OH 17 (1912–2020) FL 13 (1990–2024) NC 10 (1926–2023) WA 10 (1935–2025) MD 9 (1947–2016) LA 9 (1985–2026) IL 8 (1979–1995) OR 7 (1913–2014) CO 7 (1894–2016) TX 6 (1986–2005) KS 5 (1880–1979) MO 5 (1891–1945) TN 5 (1998–2019) OK 5 (2005–2019) DE 4 (1915–2000) SD 4 (1988–2022) VT 3 (2004–2018) PA 3 (1983–2015) AR 3 (1925–1988) SC 2 (1993–2004) HI 2 (1963–2008) UT 2 (1983–2009) AL 2 (1902–1925) GA 2 (2018–2018)

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