10 North Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1979–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
Winders v. . Hillgreen2 sentences2024A written correspondence may satisfy the statute of frauds if it “sufficiently refer[s] to some writing in which the terms are set out and which itself contains all the requisites of a valid contract or memorandum under the statute.” Winders v. Hill, 144 N.C. 614 , 618–19, 57 S.E. 456, 457 (1907).1 When looking for sufficient written memoranda, “separate writings may be considered together to satisfy the statute of frauds requirement.” Crocker v. Delta Grp., Inc., 125 N.C. 2024A written correspondence may satisfy the statute of frauds if it “sufficiently refer[s] to some writing in which the terms are set out and which itself contains all the requisites of a valid contract or memorandum under the statute.” Winders v. Hill, 144 N.C. 614 , 618–19, 57 S.E. 456, 457 (1907).1 When looking for sufficient written memoranda, “separate writings may be considered together to satisfy the statute of frauds requirement.” Crocker v. Delta Grp., Inc., 125 N.C. | 1 | 1 |
Crocker v. Delta Group, Inc.green2 sentences2024A written correspondence may satisfy the statute of frauds if it “sufficiently refer[s] to some writing in which the terms are set out and which itself contains all the requisites of a valid contract or memorandum under the statute.” Winders v. Hill, 144 N.C. 614 , 618–19, 57 S.E. 456, 457 (1907).1 When looking for sufficient written memoranda, “separate writings may be considered together to satisfy the statute of frauds requirement.” Crocker v. Delta Grp., Inc., 125 N.C. 2024Even “separate writings may be considered together to satisfy the statute of frauds requirement.” Crocker v. Delta Grp., Inc., 125 N.C. | 1 | 1 |
Purchase Nursery, Inc. v. Edgertongreen2 sentences2009See Purchase Nursery, Inc., 153 N.C. 2009See id. at 161-62 , 568 S.E.2d at 907-08 . | 1 | 1 |
Jamerson v. . Logangreen2 sentences1999Weant v. McCanless, 235 N.C. 384, 386 , 70 S.E.2d 196,198 (1952) (citations omitted); see also Jamerson v. Logan, 228 N.C. 540 , 46 S.E.2d 561 (1948). 1999Weant v. McCanless, 235 N.C. 384, 386 , 70 S.E.2d 196,198 (1952) (citations omitted); see also Jamerson v. Logan, 228 N.C. 540 , 46 S.E.2d 561 (1948). | 1 | 1 |
Weant v. McCanlessgreen2 sentences1999Weant v. McCanless, 235 N.C. 384, 386 , 70 S.E.2d 196,198 (1952) (citations omitted); see also Jamerson v. Logan, 228 N.C. 540 , 46 S.E.2d 561 (1948). 1999Weant v. McCanless, 235 N.C. 384, 386 , 70 S.E.2d 196,198 (1952) (citations omitted); see also Jamerson v. Logan, 228 N.C. 540 , 46 S.E.2d 561 (1948). | 1 | 1 |
Crowell Little v. County of Orangegreen1 sentence1997App. 495, 497 , 229 S.E.2d 823, 825 (1976), and our Supreme Court has held that separate writings may be considered together to satisfy the statute of frauds requirement. | 1 | 1 |
In Re Murray Bros., Inc.green1 sentence1997In re Murray Brothers, Inc., 53 B.R. 281, 285 (Bankr. | 1 | 1 |
Evans v. Everettgreen2 sentences1997See Evans v. Everett, 279 N.C. 352 , 183 S.E.2d 109 (1971). 1997See Evans v. Everett, 279 N.C. 352 , 183 S.E.2d 109 (1971). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Brooks v. Hackney
green
2 sentences2001Therefore, by accepting this benefit, defendant is estopped from raising the statute of frauds defense. *88 In support of its argument, plaintiff relies on our Supreme Court’s decision in Brooks v. Hackney, 329 N.C. 166 , 404 S.E.2d 854 (1991). 2001Therefore, by accepting this benefit, defendant is estopped from raising the statute of frauds defense. *88 In support of its argument, plaintiff relies on our Supreme Court’s decision in Brooks v. Hackney, 329 N.C. 166 , 404 S.E.2d 854 (1991). | 2 | 1996–2001 |
House v. Stokes
green
1 sentence2024Such requirement “was designed to guard against fraudulent claims supported by perjured testimony; it was not meant to be used by defendants to evade an obligation[.]” House v. Stokes, 66 N.C. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
B & F SLOSMAN v. Sonopress, Inc.
green
1 sentence2015Id. at 86-87 . | 1 | 2015–2015 |
River Birch Associates v. City of Raleigh
green
2 sentences1999Stat. § 22-2 ; River Birch Assoc. v. City of Raleigh, 326 N.C. 100 , 388 S.E.2d 538 (1990). *176 However, it is also well-established that there are three ways in which a party may avail himself of a statute of frauds defense: (1) The contract may be admitted and the statute pleaded as a bar to its enforcement; (2) the contract, as alleged, may be denied and the statute pleaded, and in such case if it “develops on the trial that the contract is in parol, it must be declared invalid”; or (3) the party to be charged may enter a general denial without pleading the statute, and on the trial object 1999Stat. § 22-2 ; River Birch Assoc. v. City of Raleigh, 326 N.C. 100 , 388 S.E.2d 538 (1990). *176 However, it is also well-established that there are three ways in which a party may avail himself of a statute of frauds defense: (1) The contract may be admitted and the statute pleaded as a bar to its enforcement; (2) the contract, as alleged, may be denied and the statute pleaded, and in such case if it “develops on the trial that the contract is in parol, it must be declared invalid”; or (3) the party to be charged may enter a general denial without pleading the statute, and on the trial object | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Bone International, Inc. v. Johnson
neutral
1 sentence1992Bone Int’l, Inc. v. Johnson, 74 N.C. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Horne v. Cloninger
green
2 sentences1984Kent v. Humphries, 303 N.C. 675 , 281 S.E. 2d 43 (1981) (statute bars only enforcement of the invalid contract); Hor ne v. Cloninger, 256 N.C. 102 , 123 S.E. 2d 112 (1961) (rights of parties to a fraudulent transaction); see generally An-not., 13 A.L.R. 3d 875 , 936 (1967). 1984Kent v. Humphries, 303 N.C. 675 , 281 S.E. 2d 43 (1981) (statute bars only enforcement of the invalid contract); Hor ne v. Cloninger, 256 N.C. 102 , 123 S.E. 2d 112 (1961) (rights of parties to a fraudulent transaction); see generally An-not., 13 A.L.R. 3d 875 , 936 (1967). | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Kent v. Humphries
green
2 sentences1984Kent v. Humphries, 303 N.C. 675 , 281 S.E. 2d 43 (1981) (statute bars only enforcement of the invalid contract); Hor ne v. Cloninger, 256 N.C. 102 , 123 S.E. 2d 112 (1961) (rights of parties to a fraudulent transaction); see generally An-not., 13 A.L.R. 3d 875 , 936 (1967). 1984Kent v. Humphries, 303 N.C. 675 , 281 S.E. 2d 43 (1981) (statute bars only enforcement of the invalid contract); Hor ne v. Cloninger, 256 N.C. 102 , 123 S.E. 2d 112 (1961) (rights of parties to a fraudulent transaction); see generally An-not., 13 A.L.R. 3d 875 , 936 (1967). | 1 | 1984–1984 |
United States v. Wright
green
1 sentence1979This view was reaffirmed by the court in 1907 in State v. Wolf, 145 N.C. 441, 444 , 59 S.E. 40 , 42: “Indians are subject to the general laws of the State, unless specially excepted.” Subsequent to these early North Carolina decisions, United States v. Wright, supra, was decided by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. | 1 | 1979–1979 |
Rollins v. Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians
green
2 sentences1979Code, ch. 50, sec. 16.” (This Code section dealt with fraudulent conveyances, creating a statute of frauds requirement for any contract made with an Indian.) In Rollins v. The Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, 87 N.C. 229 (1882), the court held that a federal statute controlled the effect of contracts made with Indians, but noted that the Act of Congress of 1868 which gave the Commissioner of Indian Affairs “the same supervisory charge of the Eastern or North Carolina Cherokees as of other tribes of Indians” gave him authority to establish schools, appoint agents, and organize local government 1979Code, ch. 50, sec. 16.” (This Code section dealt with fraudulent conveyances, creating a statute of frauds requirement for any contract made with an Indian.) In Rollins v. The Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, 87 N.C. 229 (1882), the court held that a federal statute controlled the effect of contracts made with Indians, but noted that the Act of Congress of 1868 which gave the Commissioner of Indian Affairs “the same supervisory charge of the Eastern or North Carolina Cherokees as of other tribes of Indians” gave him authority to establish schools, appoint agents, and organize local government | 1 | 1979–1979 |
State v. . Wolf
neutral
2 sentences1979This view was reaffirmed by the court in 1907 in State v. Wolf, 145 N.C. 441, 444 , 59 S.E. 40 , 42: “Indians are subject to the general laws of the State, unless specially excepted.” Subsequent to these early North Carolina decisions, United States v. Wright, supra, was decided by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. 1979This view was reaffirmed by the court in 1907 in State v. Wolf, 145 N.C. 441, 444 , 59 S.E. 40 , 42: “Indians are subject to the general laws of the State, unless specially excepted.” Subsequent to these early North Carolina decisions, United States v. Wright, supra, was decided by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. | 1 | 1979–1979 |
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.