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 3 courts 1897–2022 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 |
|---|---|---|
Burnett v. New York Central Railroadgreen2 sentences2001Id. at 428 , 85 S.Ct. at 1054 , 13 L.Ed.2d at 945 (internal quotation marks omitted). 2001Id. at 428 , 85 S.Ct. at 1054 , 13 L.Ed.2d at 945 (internal quotation marks omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Richmond v. Ironsgreen2 sentences1932See Richmond v. Irons, 121 U. S., 27 , 30 L. 1932See Richmond v. Irons, 121 U. S., 27 , 30 L. | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Bauer v. Douglas Aquatics, Inc.
green
1 sentence2022See, e.g., Dow-Rein, 2022-NCCOA-101, ¶ 12; Bauer, 207 N.C. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Williams v. Frederickson Motor Express Lines, Inc.
neutral
2 sentences1963Judge Brogden, after giving his approval to the rule, immediately said: "However, it is not necessary to apply the rule strictly in order to defeat recovery in the present case." That Justice Brogden did not understand that the Court had committed itself to the approval of the rule announced by the courts of Michigan and the other states referred to in the opinion is also evidenced by his opinion written two years later in Williams v. Frederickson Motor Express Lines, 198 N.C. 193 , 151 S.E. 197 . 1963Judge Brogden, after giving his approval to the rule, immediately said: "However, it is not necessary to apply the rule strictly in order to defeat recovery in the present case." That Justice Brogden did not understand that the Court had committed itself to the approval of the rule announced by the courts of Michigan and the other states referred to in the opinion is also evidenced by his opinion written two years later in Williams v. Frederickson Motor Express Lines, 198 N.C. 193 , 151 S.E. 197 . | 1 | 1963–1963 |
Miller v. . Pierce
neutral
1 sentence1958This is a just rule, and in proper cases will be applied to prevent injustice.” Shepherd, J. (later C.J.), writing in Miller v. Pierce, 104 N.C. 389 , said. | 1 | 1958–1958 |
Conyard v. Life & Casualty Insurance
neutral
2 sentences1934Conyard v. Ins. *729 Co., 204 N. C., 506 , 168 S. E., 835 . 1934Conyard v. Ins. *729 Co., 204 N. C., 506 , 168 S. E., 835 . | 1 | 1934–1934 |
Whitlock v. . Alexander
neutral
1 sentence1916This just principle is recognized by Chief Justice Clark in Edwards v. Supply Co., supra; by Mr. Justice Manning in Powell v. Lumber Co., 153 N. C., 56 , quoting from Edwards v. Supply Co., and by Mr. Justice Hoke in Whitlock v. Alexander, 160 N. C., 479 . | 1 | 1916–1916 |
Edwards v. Snow Hill Supply Co.
green
1 sentence1916This just principle is recognized by Chief Justice Clark in Edwards v. Supply Co., supra; by Mr. Justice Manning in Powell v. Lumber Co., 153 N. C., 56 , quoting from Edwards v. Supply Co., and by Mr. Justice Hoke in Whitlock v. Alexander, 160 N. C., 479 . | 1 | 1916–1916 |
Mullen v. Lake Drummond Canal & Water Co.
neutral
1 sentence1908Mullen v. Canal Co., supra; Parker v. R. | 1 | 1908–1908 |
State v. . Brown
neutral
1 sentence1907State v. Brown, 46 N. C., 129 ; Ward v. Bell, 52 N. C., 79 ; State v. Edwards, 110 N. C., 511 . | 1 | 1907–1907 |
Ward v. . Bell
neutral
1 sentence1907State v. Brown, 46 N. C., 129 ; Ward v. Bell, 52 N. C., 79 ; State v. Edwards, 110 N. C., 511 . | 1 | 1907–1907 |
State v. . Edwards
neutral
1 sentence1907State v. Brown, 46 N. C., 129 ; Ward v. Bell, 52 N. C., 79 ; State v. Edwards, 110 N. C., 511 . | 1 | 1907–1907 |
Killebrew v. . Hines
green
1 sentence1897This takes the case at bar clearly out of the rule laid down in Killebrew v. Hines, 104 N. C., 182 , so strongly relied on by the plaintiff That case, while maintaining the just principle that a mortgagee cannot enter and-take possession of growing crops to the prejudice of pre-existing mortgagees or lienees, clearly recognizes the right of the mortgagee to enter upon condition broken, and this right is sustained bj^ every authority cited therein. | 1 | 1897–1897 |
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.