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.
10 North Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1982–2021 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
In re T.H.T.green2 sentences2021See In re T.H.T., IN RE C.R.L., K.W.D. 2021-NCSC-24 Opinion of the Court 362 N.C. at 456 . 2021See In re T.H.T., IN RE C.R.L., K.W.D. 2021-NCSC-24 Opinion of the Court 362 N.C. at 456 . | 2 | 2 |
In re D.J.D.green2 sentences2006See In re D.J.D., 171 N.C.App. at 244 , 615 S.E.2d at 35 (holding that a delay in the hearing "is not so prejudicial to respondent to warrant reversal where there is ample evidence on multiple grounds to terminate respondent's rights."). 2006See In re D.J.D., 171 N.C.App. at 244 , 615 S.E.2d at 35 (holding that a delay in the hearing "is not so prejudicial to respondent to warrant reversal where there is ample evidence on multiple grounds to terminate respondent's rights."). | 2 | 2 |
In Re DJDgreen2 sentences2006See In re D.J.D., 171 N.C.App. at 244 , 615 S.E.2d at 35 (holding that a delay in the hearing "is not so prejudicial to respondent to warrant reversal where there is ample evidence on multiple grounds to terminate respondent's rights."). 2006See In re D.J.D., 171 N.C.App. at 244 , 615 S.E.2d at 35 (holding that a delay in the hearing "is not so prejudicial to respondent to warrant reversal where there is ample evidence on multiple grounds to terminate respondent's rights."). | 2 | 2 |
Smith v. Quinngreen2 sentences2001Smith v. Quinn, 324 N.C. 316 , 378 S.E.2d 28 (1989) (sanctions may be entered against either the represented party or the attorney, even when the attorney is solely responsible for the delay or violation). 2001Smith v. Quinn, 324 N.C. 316 , 378 S.E.2d 28 (1989) (sanctions may be entered against either the represented party or the attorney, even when the attorney is solely responsible for the delay or violation). | 1 | 2 |
Rivenbark v. Southmark Corp.green2 sentences2011I acknowledge that a trial court may enter sanctions when the plaintiff or his attorney violates a rule of civil procedure or a court order, Harris v. Maready, 311 N.C. 536, 551 , 319 S.E.2d 912, 922 (1984) (Rule 8(a)(2)); Rivenbark v. Southmark Corp., 93 N.C.App. 414, 420 , 378 S.E.2d 196, 200 (1989) (court order)[,] [and that] [t]he sanctions may be entered against either the represented party or the attorney, even when the attorney is solely responsible for the delay or violation. 2011I acknowledge that a trial court may enter sanctions when the plaintiff or his attorney violates a rule of civil procedure or a court order, Harris v. Maready, 311 N.C. 536, 551 , 319 S.E.2d 912, 922 (1984) (Rule 8(a)(2)); Rivenbark v. Southmark Corp., 93 N.C.App. 414, 420 , 378 S.E.2d 196, 200 (1989) (court order)[,] [and that] [t]he sanctions may be entered against either the represented party or the attorney, even when the attorney is solely responsible for the delay or violation. | 1 | 1 |
Harris v. Mareadygreen2 sentences2011I acknowledge that a trial court may enter sanctions when the plaintiff or his attorney violates a rule of civil procedure or a court order, Harris v. Maready, 311 N.C. 536, 551 , 319 S.E.2d 912, 922 (1984) (Rule 8(a)(2)); Rivenbark v. Southmark Corp., 93 N.C.App. 414, 420 , 378 S.E.2d 196, 200 (1989) (court order)[,] [and that] [t]he sanctions may be entered against either the represented party or the attorney, even when the attorney is solely responsible for the delay or violation. 2011I acknowledge that a trial court may enter sanctions when the plaintiff or his attorney violates a rule of civil procedure or a court order, Harris v. Maready, 311 N.C. 536, 551 , 319 S.E.2d 912, 922 (1984) (Rule 8(a)(2)); Rivenbark v. Southmark Corp., 93 N.C.App. 414, 420 , 378 S.E.2d 196, 200 (1989) (court order)[,] [and that] [t]he sanctions may be entered against either the represented party or the attorney, even when the attorney is solely responsible for the delay or violation. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Hornergreen2 sentences2005Horner, 310 N.C. at 279 , 311 S.E.2d at 285 (to show error, defendant must have been prejudiced by later written order elaborating on in-court ruling on motion to suppress); Richardson, 295 N.C. at 319-20 , 245 S.E.2d at 761-62 (must show prejudice from subsequent entry of findings); cf. State v. Williams, 34 N.C.App. 386, 388 , 238 S.E.2d 195, 196 (1977) (where a trial court admitted testimony into evidence, defendant must show "prejudice which resulted from the trial court's delay" in dictating its findings). 2005Horner, 310 N.C. at 279 , 311 S.E.2d at 285 (to show error, defendant must have been prejudiced by later written order elaborating on in-court ruling on motion to suppress); Richardson, 295 N.C. at 319-20 , 245 S.E.2d at 761-62 (must show prejudice from subsequent entry of findings); cf. State v. Williams, 34 N.C.App. 386, 388 , 238 S.E.2d 195, 196 (1977) (where a trial court admitted testimony into evidence, defendant must show "prejudice which resulted from the trial court's delay" in dictating its findings). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Williamsgreen2 sentences2005Horner, 310 N.C. at 279 , 311 S.E.2d at 285 (to show error, defendant must have been prejudiced by later written order elaborating on in-court ruling on motion to suppress); Richardson, 295 N.C. at 319-20 , 245 S.E.2d at 761-62 (must show prejudice from subsequent entry of findings); cf. State v. Williams, 34 N.C.App. 386, 388 , 238 S.E.2d 195, 196 (1977) (where a trial court admitted testimony into evidence, defendant must show "prejudice which resulted from the trial court's delay" in dictating its findings). 2005Horner, 310 N.C. at 279 , 311 S.E.2d at 285 (to show error, defendant must have been prejudiced by later written order elaborating on in-court ruling on motion to suppress); Richardson, 295 N.C. at 319-20 , 245 S.E.2d at 761-62 (must show prejudice from subsequent entry of findings); cf. State v. Williams, 34 N.C.App. 386, 388 , 238 S.E.2d 195, 196 (1977) (where a trial court admitted testimony into evidence, defendant must show "prejudice which resulted from the trial court's delay" in dictating its findings). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Richardsongreen2 sentences2005Horner, 310 N.C. at 279 , 311 S.E.2d at 285 (to show error, defendant must have been prejudiced by later written order elaborating on in-court ruling on motion to suppress); Richardson, 295 N.C. at 319-20 , 245 S.E.2d at 761-62 (must show prejudice from subsequent entry of findings); cf. State v. Williams, 34 N.C.App. 386, 388 , 238 S.E.2d 195, 196 (1977) (where a trial court admitted testimony into evidence, defendant must show "prejudice which resulted from the trial court's delay" in dictating its findings). 2005Horner, 310 N.C. at 279 , 311 S.E.2d at 285 (to show error, defendant must have been prejudiced by later written order elaborating on in-court ruling on motion to suppress); Richardson, 295 N.C. at 319-20 , 245 S.E.2d at 761-62 (must show prejudice from subsequent entry of findings); cf. State v. Williams, 34 N.C.App. 386, 388 , 238 S.E.2d 195, 196 (1977) (where a trial court admitted testimony into evidence, defendant must show "prejudice which resulted from the trial court's delay" in dictating its findings). | 1 | 1 |
Cole v. Farmers Bank & Trust Co.green2 sentences1982The delay in hearing the appeal of these rulings will not “ ‘work injury to appellant if not corrected before appeal from the final judgment,’ ” Cole v. Farmers Bank & Trust Co., 221 N.C. 249, 251 , 20 S.E. 2d 54, 55 (1942) (quoting Leak v. Covington, 95 N.C. 193 (1886)); accord, Veazey v. City of Durham, 231 N.C. 357 , 57 S.E. 2d 377 . 1982The delay in hearing the appeal of these rulings will not “ ‘work injury to appellant if not corrected before appeal from the final judgment,’ ” Cole v. Farmers Bank & Trust Co., 221 N.C. 249, 251 , 20 S.E. 2d 54, 55 (1942) (quoting Leak v. Covington, 95 N.C. 193 (1886)); accord, Veazey v. City of Durham, 231 N.C. 357 , 57 S.E. 2d 377 . | 1 | 1 |
Veazey v. City of Durhamgreen2 sentences1982The delay in hearing the appeal of these rulings will not “ ‘work injury to appellant if not corrected before appeal from the final judgment,’ ” Cole v. Farmers Bank & Trust Co., 221 N.C. 249, 251 , 20 S.E. 2d 54, 55 (1942) (quoting Leak v. Covington, 95 N.C. 193 (1886)); accord, Veazey v. City of Durham, 231 N.C. 357 , 57 S.E. 2d 377 . 1982The delay in hearing the appeal of these rulings will not “ ‘work injury to appellant if not corrected before appeal from the final judgment,’ ” Cole v. Farmers Bank & Trust Co., 221 N.C. 249, 251 , 20 S.E. 2d 54, 55 (1942) (quoting Leak v. Covington, 95 N.C. 193 (1886)); accord, Veazey v. City of Durham, 231 N.C. 357 , 57 S.E. 2d 377 . | 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Spivey
green
2 sentences2015Spivey, 357 N.C. at 119 , 579 S.E.2d at 255 . 2015Spivey, 357 N.C. at 119 , 579 S.E.2d at 255 . | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Leak v. . Covington
green
1 sentence1982The delay in hearing the appeal of these rulings will not “ ‘work injury to appellant if not corrected before appeal from the final judgment,’ ” Cole v. Farmers Bank & Trust Co., 221 N.C. 249, 251 , 20 S.E. 2d 54, 55 (1942) (quoting Leak v. Covington, 95 N.C. 193 (1886)); accord, Veazey v. City of Durham, 231 N.C. 357 , 57 S.E. 2d 377 . | 1 | 1982–1982 |
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.