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 1925–2025 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Poage v. Coxgreen1 sentence2025A. Lack of Discovery Plaintiff first argues that the trial court erred by hearing and ruling on Defendants’ motion for summary judgment “before the parties had an opportunity to conduct discovery.” It can be error for a trial court to rule on a motion for summary judgment when discovery procedures “are still pending and the party seeking discovery has not been dilatory in doing so.” Poage v. Cox, 265 N.C. | 1 | 1 |
In Re the Appeal From the Civil Penaltygreen1 sentence2017See id. | 1 | 1 |
State v. . Farrellgreen2 sentences2013Farrell, 223 N.C. at 326-27, 26 S.E.2d at 325 . 2013Farrell, 223 N.C. at 326-27, 26 S.E.2d at 325 . | 1 | 1 |
Coman v. Thomas Manufacturing Co.green2 sentences2000Wrongful Termination At-will employees may be terminated for no reason or for arbitrary or irrational reasons, but they may not be terminated for an “ ‘unlawful reason or purpose that contravenes public policy.’ ” Coman v. Thomas Manufacturing Co., 325 N.C. 172, 175 , 381 S.E.2d 445, 447 (1989) (citation omitted). 2000Wrongful Termination At-will employees may be terminated for no reason or for arbitrary or irrational reasons, but they may not be terminated for an “ ‘unlawful reason or purpose that contravenes public policy.’ ” Coman v. Thomas Manufacturing Co., 325 N.C. 172, 175 , 381 S.E.2d 445, 447 (1989) (citation omitted). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
James v. Bartlett
green
2 sentences2013Assuming arguendo the trial court did not abuse its discretion in disallowing Ward from giving his opinion concerning the Google Map files, James, 359 N.C. at 266 , 607 S.E.2d at 642 , we hold that the trial court erred in violation of the constitutions of the United States and North Carolina. 2013Assuming arguendo the trial court did not abuse its discretion in disallowing Ward from giving his opinion concerning the Google Map files, James, 359 N.C. at 266 , 607 S.E.2d at 642 , we hold that the trial court erred in violation of the constitutions of the United States and North Carolina. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
State v. Moore
green
1 sentence2007Moore, 39 N.C. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Brown v. Friday Services, Inc.
green
2 sentences1995Although plaintiff contends that the trial court erred in hearing defendants’ motion for summary judgment before allowing the parties time for discovery, and before allowing plaintiff’s motion to amend his complaint, we find that even if summary judgment was improperly awarded, plaintiff’s case would not have succeeded on the merits because of our holding in Brown v. Friday Services, Inc., 119 N.C. 1995App. 753 , 460 S.E.2d 356 (filed August 15, 1995). | 1 | 1995–1995 |
State v. Stokes
green
2 sentences1989“The general rule in this jurisdiction is that ordinarily a trial judge may not review the orders, judgments, or actions of another judge of coordinate jurisdiction.” State v. Stokes, 308 N.C. 634 , 304 S.E. 2d 184 (1983). 1989“The general rule in this jurisdiction is that ordinarily a trial judge may not review the orders, judgments, or actions of another judge of coordinate jurisdiction.” State v. Stokes, 308 N.C. 634 , 304 S.E. 2d 184 (1983). | 1 | 1989–1989 |
State v. Braswell
green
2 sentences1976“The Sixth Amendment, which guarantees to the accused ‘in all criminal prosecutions’ a speedy and public trial ‘by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed,’ is inapposite here.” State v. Braswell, 283 N.C. 332 , 196 S.E. 2d 185 (1973). 1976“The Sixth Amendment, which guarantees to the accused ‘in all criminal prosecutions’ a speedy and public trial ‘by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed,’ is inapposite here.” State v. Braswell, 283 N.C. 332 , 196 S.E. 2d 185 (1973). | 1 | 1976–1976 |
State v. Britt
green
2 sentences1972Taken as a whole it is similar to the charge upheld in State v. Britt, 270 N.C. 416 , 154 S.E. 2d 519 (1967). 1972Taken as a whole it is similar to the charge upheld in State v. Britt, 270 N.C. 416 , 154 S.E. 2d 519 (1967). | 1 | 1972–1972 |
Jackson v. . Jackson
green
1 sentence1925Jackson v. Jackson, supra. It is also insisted for the defendant that the court erred in hearing evidence of circumstances occurring within six months after the institution of the action, but'there were antecedent facts tending to support the plaintiff’s contentions, and we are not warranted in reversing the judgment solely on this ground. | 1 | 1925–1925 |
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.