401 North Carolina opinions name it 4 courts 1977–2026 52 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 |
|---|---|---|
Dobson v. Harrisgreen2 sentences2026The showing required for summary judgment “may be accomplished by proving an essential element of the opposing party’s claim does not exist, cannot be proven at trial, or would be barred by an affirmative defense, or by showing through discovery that the opposing party cannot produce evidence to support an essential element of her claim.” Dobson, 352 N.C. at 83 , 530 S.E.2d at 835 . 2026The showing required for summary judgment “may be accomplished by proving an essential element of the opposing party’s claim does not exist, cannot be proven at trial, or would be barred by an affirmative defense, or by showing through discovery that the opposing party cannot produce evidence to support an essential element of her claim.” Dobson, 352 N.C. at 83 , 530 S.E.2d at 835 . | 34 | 42 |
Collingwood v. GEN. ELEC. R. EST. EQUIT.green2 sentences2011“The movant may meet this burden by proving that an essential element of the opposing party’s claim is nonexistent, or by showing through discovery that the opposing party cannot produce evidence to support an essential element of his claim or cannot surmount an affirmative defense which would bar the claim.” Collingwood v. General Electric Real Estate Equities, Inc., 324 N.C. 63, 66 , 376 S.E.2d 425, 427 (1989). 2011“The movant may meet this burden by proving that an essential element of the opposing party’s claim is nonexistent, or by showing through discovery that the opposing party cannot produce evidence to support an essential element of his claim or cannot surmount an affirmative defense which would bar the claim.” Collingwood v. General Electric Real Estate Equities, Inc., 324 N.C. 63, 66 , 376 S.E.2d 425, 427 (1989). | 31 | 48 |
Roumillat v. Simplistic Enterprises, Inc.red2 sentences2019The moving party bears the burden of establishing a lack of any triable issue and may meet this burden by “proving that an essential element of the opposing party’s claim is nonexistent, or by showing through discovery that the opposing party cannot produce evidence to support an essential element of his claim or cannot surmount an affirmative defense which would bar the claim.” Roumillat v. Simplistic Enters., Inc., 331 N.C. 57 , 62–63, 414 S.E.2d 339 , 341–42 (1992). 38. 2019The moving party bears the burden of establishing a lack of any triable issue and may meet this burden by “proving that an essential element of the opposing party’s claim is nonexistent, or by showing through discovery that the opposing party cannot produce evidence to support an essential element of his claim or cannot surmount an affirmative defense which would bar the claim.” Roumillat v. Simplistic Enters., Inc., 331 N.C. 57 , 62–63, 414 S.E.2d 339 , 341–42 (1992). 38. | 22 | 42 |
Dickens v. Puryeargreen2 sentences1994“Thus a defending party is entitled to summary judgment if he can show that claimant cannot prove the existence of an essential element of his claim, ... or cannot surmount an affirmative defense which would bar the claim.” Dickens v. Puryear, 302 N.C. 437, 453 , 276 S.E.2d 325, 335 (1981) (citations omitted). 1994“Thus a defending party is entitled to summary judgment if he can show that claimant cannot prove the existence of an essential element of his claim, ... or cannot surmount an affirmative defense which would bar the claim.” Dickens v. Puryear, 302 N.C. 437, 453 , 276 S.E.2d 325, 335 (1981) (citations omitted). | 9 | 26 |
Boudreau v. Baughmangreen2 sentences2021A party may meet this burden “by proving that an essential element of the opposing party’s claim is nonexistent, or by showing through discovery that the opposing party cannot produce evidence to support an essential element of his claim or cannot surmount an affirmative defense which would bar the claim.” Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). ¶ 33 When the court reviews the evidence at summary judgment, “[a]ll inferences of fact from the proofs offered at the hearing must be drawn against the movant and in favor of the party opposing the motion.” Boudreau v. Baughman, 322 N.C. 2021A party may meet this burden “by proving that an essential element of the opposing party’s claim is nonexistent, or by showing through discovery that the opposing party cannot produce evidence to support an essential element of his claim or cannot surmount an affirmative defense which would bar the claim.” Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). ¶ 33 When the court reviews the evidence at summary judgment, “[a]ll inferences of fact from the proofs offered at the hearing must be drawn against the movant and in favor of the party opposing the motion.” Boudreau v. Baughman, 322 N.C. | 8 | 8 |
DeWitt v. Eveready Battery Co., Inc.green2 sentences2026“This burden may be met by proving . . . an essential element of the opposing party’s claim is non-extant, or by showing through discovery . . . the opposing party cannot produce evidence to support an essential element of his claim or cannot surmount an affirmative defense[,] which would bar the claim.” Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). -5- DALES V. 2026“This burden may be met by proving . . . an essential element of the opposing party’s claim is nonextant, or by showing through discovery . . . opposing party cannot produce evidence to support an essential element of his claim or cannot surmount an affirmative defense[,] which would bar the claim.” Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). | 7 | 35 |
Zimmerman v. Hogg & Allen, Professional Ass'ngreen2 sentences2006The movant can carry this burden “by proving that an essential element of the opposing party’s claim is nonexistent or by showing through discovery that the opposing party cannot produce evidence to support an essential element of his claim.” Zimmerman v. Hogg & Allen, 286 N.C. 24, 29 , 209 S.E.2d 795, 798 (1974). 2006The movant can carry this burden “by proving that an essential element of the opposing party’s claim is nonexistent or by showing through discovery that the opposing party cannot produce evidence to support an essential element of his claim.” Zimmerman v. Hogg & Allen, 286 N.C. 24, 29 , 209 S.E.2d 795, 798 (1974). | 7 | 27 |
Wilhelm v. City of Fayettevillegreen2 sentences2019The moving party must demonstrate the absence of a triable issue: "(1) by showing that an essential element of the opposing party's claim is nonexistent; or (2) [by] demonstrating that the opposing party cannot produce evidence sufficient to support an essential element of the claim or overcome an affirmative defense which would work to bar [its] claim." Wilhelm v. City of Fayetteville , 121 N.C. 2014App. 182, 184 , 696 S.E.2d 159 , 160–61 (2010). {19} The moving party must demonstrate the absence of a triable issue and does so either: “(1) by showing that an essential element of the opposing party’s claim is non-existent; or (2) by demonstrating that the opposing party cannot produce evidence sufficient to support an essential element of the claim or overcome an affirmative defense which would work to bar its claim.” Wilhelm v. City of Fayetteville, 121 N.C. | 7 | 10 |
Lyles v. City of Charlottegreen2 sentences2006"A defendant who moves for summary judgment may meet this burden by showing either that (1) an essential element of plaintiff's claim is nonexistent; (2) plaintiff cannot produce evidence to support an essential element of its claim; or (3) plaintiff cannot surmount an affirmative defense raised in bar of its claim." Lyles v. City of Charlotte, 120 N.C. 2005"A defendant who moves for summary judgment may meet this burden by showing either that (1) an essential element of plaintiff's claim is nonexistent; (2) plaintiff cannot produce evidence to support an essential element of its claim; or (3) plaintiff cannot surmount an affirmative defense raised in bar of its claim." Lyles v. City of Charlotte, 120 N.C.App. 96 , 99, 461 S.E.2d 347 , 350 (1995), rev'd on other grounds, 344 N.C. 676 , 477 S.E.2d 150 (1996). "[T]he evidence presented by the parties must be viewed in the light most favorable to the non-movant." Bruce-Terminix, 130 N.C.App. at 733 | 6 | 16 |
Forbis v. Nealgreen2 sentences2022“This burden may be met by proving that an essential element of the opposing party’s claim is nonexistent, or by showing through discovery that the opposing party cannot produce evidence to support an essential element of his claim or cannot surmount an affirmative defense which would bar the claim.” Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). ¶ 31 On appeal, “[t]he standard of review for summary judgment is de novo.” Forbis v. Neal, 361 N.C. 519, 524 , 649 S.E.2d 382, 385 (2007) (citation omitted). 2022“This burden may be met by proving that an essential element of the opposing party’s claim is nonexistent, or by showing through discovery that the opposing party cannot produce evidence to support an essential element of his claim or cannot surmount an affirmative defense which would bar the claim.” Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). ¶ 31 On appeal, “[t]he standard of review for summary judgment is de novo.” Forbis v. Neal, 361 N.C. 519, 524 , 649 S.E.2d 382, 385 (2007) (citation omitted). | 6 | 6 |
Bernick v. Jurdengreen2 sentences2005The movant may meet this burden by proving that an essential element of the opposing party’s claim is nonexistent, or by showing through discovery that the opposing party cannot produce evidence to support an essential element of his claim or cannot surmount an affirmative defense which would bar the claim. *210 Roumillat, 331 N.C. at 63 , 414 S.E.2d at 342 (citing Bernick v. Jurden, 306 N.C. 435 , 293 S.E.2d 405 (1982); Zimmerman v. Hogg & Allen, 286 N.C. 24 , 209 S.E.2d 795 (1974)). 2005The movant may meet this burden by proving that an essential element of the opposing party’s claim is nonexistent, or by showing through discovery that the opposing party cannot produce evidence to support an essential element of his claim or cannot surmount an affirmative defense which would bar the claim. *210 Roumillat, 331 N.C. at 63 , 414 S.E.2d at 342 (citing Bernick v. Jurden, 306 N.C. 435 , 293 S.E.2d 405 (1982); Zimmerman v. Hogg & Allen, 286 N.C. 24 , 209 S.E.2d 795 (1974)). | 5 | 16 |
McKinnon v. CV INDUSTRIES, INC.green2 sentences2016"A movant [for summary judgment] may meet its burden by showing either that: (1) an essential element of the non-movant's case is nonexistent; or (2) based upon discovery, the non-movant cannot produce evidence to support an essential element of its claim." McKinnon v. CV Indus., Inc., 213 N.C.App. 328 , 332, 713 S.E.2d 495 , 499 (2011) (quoting Moore v. City of Creedmoor , 120 N.C.App. 27 , 36, 460 S.E.2d 899 , 904 (1995) ). 2016"A movant [for summary judgment] may meet its burden by showing either that: (1) an essential element of the non-movant's case is nonexistent; or (2) based upon discovery, the non-movant cannot produce evidence to support an essential element of its claim." McKinnon v. CV Indus., Inc., 213 N.C.App. 328 , 332, 713 S.E.2d 495 , 499 (2011) (quoting Moore v. City of Creedmoor , 120 N.C.App. 27 , 36, 460 S.E.2d 899 , 904 (1995) ). | 5 | 6 |
Lowe v. Bradfordgreen2 sentences2000The showing required for summary judgment may be accomplished by proving an essential element of the opposing party’s claim does not exist, cannot be proven at trial, or would be barred by an affirmative defense, e.g., Goodman v. Wenco Foods, Inc., 333 N.C. 1 , 423 S.E.2d 444 (1992), or by showing through discovery that the opposing party cannot produce evidence to support an essential element of her claim, e.g., Lowe v. Bradford, 305 N.C. 366 , 289 S.E.2d 363 (1982). 2000The showing required for summary judgment may be accomplished by proving an essential element of the opposing party’s claim does not exist, cannot be proven at trial, or would be barred by an affirmative defense, e.g., Goodman v. Wenco Foods, Inc., 333 N.C. 1 , 423 S.E.2d 444 (1992), or by showing through discovery that the opposing party cannot produce evidence to support an essential element of her claim, e.g., Lowe v. Bradford, 305 N.C. 366 , 289 S.E.2d 363 (1982). | 4 | 7 |
Moore v. Fieldcrest Mills, Inc.green2 sentences1992A party may do so by “ ‘proving that an essential element of the opposing party’s claim is nonexistent or by showing through discovery that the opposing party cannot produce evidence to support an essential element of his claim.’ ” Moore v. Fieldcrest Mills, Inc., 296 N.C. 467, 470 , 251 S.E.2d 419, 421 (1979). 1992A party may do so by “ ‘proving that an essential element of the opposing party’s claim is nonexistent or by showing through discovery that the opposing party cannot produce evidence to support an essential element of his claim.’ ” Moore v. Fieldcrest Mills, Inc., 296 N.C. 467, 470 , 251 S.E.2d 419, 421 (1979). | 4 | 7 |
City of Thomasville v. Lease-Afex, Inc.green2 sentences2019A party moving for summary judgment may meet his or her burden by “showing through discovery that the opposing party cannot produce evidence to support an essential element of his or her claim.” Thomasville v. Lease-Afex, Inc., 300 N.C. 651, 654 , 268 S.E.2d 190, 193 (1980); see also Rorrer, 313 N.C. at 350 , 329 S.E.2d at 363 (explaining that a movant at summary judgment has “the initial burden of showing that an essential element of [the claimant’s] case [does] not exist as a matter of law or showing through discovery that [the claimant has] not produced evidence to support an essential elem 2019A party moving for summary judgment may meet his or her burden by “showing through discovery that the opposing party cannot produce evidence to support an essential element of his or her claim.” Thomasville v. Lease-Afex, Inc., 300 N.C. 651, 654 , 268 S.E.2d 190, 193 (1980); see also Rorrer, 313 N.C. at 350 , 329 S.E.2d at 363 (explaining that a movant at summary judgment has “the initial burden of showing that an essential element of [the claimant’s] case [does] not exist as a matter of law or showing through discovery that [the claimant has] not produced evidence to support an essential elem | 4 | 5 |
Taylor v. Ashburngreen2 sentences2011The moving party can satisfy this burden “by showing either (1) an essential element of the non-movant’s claim is nonexistent, (2) the non-movant cannot produce evidence to support an essential element of his claim, or (3) the non-movant cannot surmount an affirmative defense which would bar his claim.” Id. at 606-07 , 436 S.E.2d at 278 . 2011The moving party can satisfy this burden “by showing either (1) an essential element of the non-movant’s claim is nonexistent, (2) the non-movant cannot produce evidence to support an essential element of his claim, or (3) the non-movant cannot surmount an affirmative defense which would bar his claim.” Id. at 606-07 , 436 S.E.2d at 278 . | 4 | 5 |
Pembee Mfg. Corp. v. Cape Fear Const. Co., Inc.green2 sentences2005Co., 313 N.C. 488, 491 , 329 S.E.2d 350, 353 (1985). "`The movant may meet this burden by proving that an essential element of the opposing party's claim is nonexistent, or by showing through discovery that the opposing party cannot produce evidence to support an essential element of his claim or cannot surmount an affirmative defense which would bar the claim.'" Roumillat v. Simplistic Enterprises, Inc., 331 N.C. 57, 63 , 414 S.E.2d 339, 342 (1992) (quoting Collingwood v. G.E. 2005Co., 313 N.C. 488, 491 , 329 S.E.2d 350, 353 (1985). "`The movant may meet this burden by proving that an essential element of the opposing party's claim is nonexistent, or by showing through discovery that the opposing party cannot produce evidence to support an essential element of his claim or cannot surmount an affirmative defense which would bar the claim.'" Roumillat v. Simplistic Enterprises, Inc., 331 N.C. 57, 63 , 414 S.E.2d 339, 342 (1992) (quoting Collingwood v. G.E. | 4 | 4 |
| Holloway v. Wachovia Bank & Trust Co., NAgreen | 3 | 3 |
| Rorrer v. Cookegreen | 3 | 3 |
| Waddle v. Sparksgreen | 3 | 3 |
| Ward v. Durham Life Insurance Co.green | 3 | 3 |
Pacheco v. Rogers and Breece, Inc.green2 sentences2008App. at 452 , 579 S.E.2d at 509 ("When a plaintiff fails to produce any evidence of an essential element of her claim, the trial court's grant of summary judgment is proper."). 2008“When a plaintiff fails to produce any evidence of an essential element of her claim, the trial court’s grant of summary judgment is proper.” Pacheco v. Rogers & Breece, Inc., 157 N.C. | 2 | 8 |
Harrison v. City of Sanfordgreen2 sentences2009"There is no genuine issue of material fact where a party demonstrates that the claimant cannot prove the existence of an essential element of his claim ..." Harrison v. City of Sanford, 177 N.C.App. 116, 118 , 627 S.E.2d 672, 675 (2006) (citation omitted). 2009"There is no genuine issue of material fact where a party demonstrates that the claimant cannot prove the existence of an essential element of his claim ..." Harrison v. City of Sanford, 177 N.C.App. 116, 118 , 627 S.E.2d 672, 675 (2006) (citation omitted). | 2 | 8 |
Clark v. Browngreen2 sentences1996In order to prevail on a summary judgment motion, the moving party must show either “(1) an essential element of plaintiff’s claim is nonexistent... [2] plaintiff cannot produce evidence to support an essential element of his claim, or . . . [3] plaintiff cannot surmount an affirmative defense which would bar the claim.” Clark v. Brown, 99 N.C. 1996In order to prevail on a summary judgment motion, the moving party must show either “(1) an essential element of plaintiff’s claim is nonexistent... [2] plaintiff cannot produce evidence to support an essential element of his claim, or . . . [3] plaintiff cannot surmount an affirmative defense which would bar the claim.” Clark v. Brown, 99 N.C. | 2 | 5 |
Moore v. City of Creedmoorgreen2 sentences2016"A movant [for summary judgment] may meet its burden by showing either that: (1) an essential element of the non-movant's case is nonexistent; or (2) based upon discovery, the non-movant cannot produce evidence to support an essential element of its claim." McKinnon v. CV Indus., Inc., 213 N.C.App. 328 , 332, 713 S.E.2d 495 , 499 (2011) (quoting Moore v. City of Creedmoor , 120 N.C.App. 27 , 36, 460 S.E.2d 899 , 904 (1995) ). 2016"A movant [for summary judgment] may meet its burden by showing either that: (1) an essential element of the non-movant's case is nonexistent; or (2) based upon discovery, the non-movant cannot produce evidence to support an essential element of its claim." McKinnon v. CV Indus., Inc., 213 N.C.App. 328 , 332, 713 S.E.2d 495 , 499 (2011) (quoting Moore v. City of Creedmoor , 120 N.C.App. 27 , 36, 460 S.E.2d 899 , 904 (1995) ). | 2 | 4 |
| Griffith v. Glen Wood Co., Inc.green | 2 | 3 |
| Badin Shores Resort Owners Ass'n, Inc. v. Handy Sanitary Dist.green | 2 | 3 |
| Hamby v. Thurman Timber Co.green | 2 | 3 |
| Goodman v. Wenco Foods, Inc.green | 2 | 3 |
| Dixie Chemical Corp. v. Edwardsgreen | 2 | 3 |
| Caswell Realty Associates I, L.P. v. Andrews Co.green | 2 | 3 |
| Green v. Freemangreen | 2 | 2 |
| Hardin v. KCS International, Inc.green | 2 | 2 |
| Cloud v. Stewartgreen | 2 | 2 |
| Dendy v. Watkinsgreen | 2 | 2 |
| United Laboratories, Inc. v. Kuykendallgreen | 2 | 2 |
| Price v. Davisgreen | 2 | 2 |
| Weatherford v. Glassmangreen | 2 | 2 |
| Medlin v. Bassgreen | 2 | 2 |
| Bolick v. Bon Worth, Inc.green | 2 | 2 |
| 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. Whitted
green
2 sentences2012When moving for summary judgment, the movant has the burden to show “(1) an essential element of the non-movant’s claim is nonexistent, (2) the non-movant cannot produce evidence to support an essential element of his claim, or (3) the non-movant cannot surmount an affirmative defense which would bar his claim.” Taylor v. Ashburn, 112 N.C. 2012When moving for summary judgment, the movant has the burden to show “(1) an essential element of the non-movant’s claim is nonexistent, (2) the non-movant cannot produce evidence to support an essential element of his claim, or (3) the non-movant cannot surmount an affirmative defense which would bar his claim.” Taylor v. Ashburn, 112 N.C. | 7 | 1995–2012 |
Andresen v. Progress Energy, Inc.
green
2 sentences2016Furthermore, this Court has noted to prevail in a summary judgment action, "[t]he movant ... bears the burden of showing that (1) an essential element of plaintiff's claim is nonexistent; (2) plaintiff cannot produce evidence to support an essential element of its claim; or (3) plaintiff cannot surmount an affirmative defense raised in bar of its claim." Andresen v. Progress Energy, Inc., 204 N.C.App. 182 , 184, 696 S.E.2d 159 , 161 (2010) (internal quotations omitted). 2016Furthermore, this Court has noted to prevail in a summary judgment action, "[t]he movant ... bears the burden of showing that (1) an essential element of plaintiff's claim is nonexistent; (2) plaintiff cannot produce evidence to support an essential element of its claim; or (3) plaintiff cannot surmount an affirmative defense raised in bar of its claim." Andresen v. Progress Energy, Inc., 204 N.C.App. 182 , 184, 696 S.E.2d 159 , 161 (2010) (internal quotations omitted). | 5 | 2014–2016 |
Lyles v. City of Charlotte
green
2 sentences2005"A defendant who moves for summary judgment may meet this burden by showing either that (1) an essential element of plaintiff's claim is nonexistent; (2) plaintiff cannot produce evidence to support an essential element of its claim; or (3) plaintiff cannot surmount an affirmative defense raised in bar of its claim." Lyles v. City of Charlotte, 120 N.C.App. 96 , 99, 461 S.E.2d 347 , 350 (1995), rev'd on other grounds, 344 N.C. 676 , 477 S.E.2d 150 (1996). "[T]he evidence presented by the parties must be viewed in the light most favorable to the non-movant." Bruce-Terminix, 130 N.C.App. at 733 2005"A defendant who moves for summary judgment may meet this burden by showing either that (1) an essential element of plaintiff's claim is nonexistent; (2) plaintiff cannot produce evidence to support an essential element of its claim; or (3) plaintiff cannot surmount an affirmative defense raised in bar of its claim." Lyles v. City of Charlotte, 120 N.C.App. 96 , 99, 461 S.E.2d 347 , 350 (1995), rev'd on other grounds, 344 N.C. 676 , 477 S.E.2d 150 (1996). "[T]he evidence presented by the parties must be viewed in the light most favorable to the non-movant." Bruce-Terminix, 130 N.C.App. at 733 | 5 | 1999–2006 |
Wallen v. Riverside Sports Center
green
2 sentences2018A trial court should only grant such a motion where the plaintiff's forecast of evidence fails to support an essential element of the claim." Wallen v. Riverside Sports Ctr. , 173 N.C. 2018A trial court should only grant such a motion where the plaintiff's forecast of evidence fails to support an essential element of the claim." Wallen v. Riverside Sports Ctr. , 173 N.C. | 4 | 2018–2022 |
East Mkt. St. Square, Inc. v. Tycorp Pizza IV, Inc.
neutral
2 sentences2007App. 116, 118 , 627 S.E.2d 672, 675 , disc. review denied, 361 N.C. 166 , 639 S.E.2d 649 (2006). 2007"There is no genuine issue of material fact where a party demonstrates that the claimant cannot prove the existence of an essential element of his claim or cannot surmount an affirmative defense which would bar the claim." Harrison v. City of Sanford, 177 N.C.App. 116 , 118, 627 S.E.2d 672 , 675, disc. review denied, 361 N.C. 166 , 639 S.E.2d 649 (2006). | 4 | 2007–2007 |
Messick v. Catawba County, NC
green
2 sentences2006The movant can meet the burden by either: "1) Proving that an essential element of the opposing party's claim is nonexistent; or 2) Showing through discovery that the opposing party cannot produce evidence sufficient to support an essential element of his claim nor [evidence] sufficient to surmount an affirmative defense to his claim." Price v. Davis, 132 N.C.App. 556, 559 , 512 S.E.2d 783, 786 (1999) (citing Messick v. Catawba County, 110 N.C.App. 707, 712 , 431 S.E.2d 489, 492-93 , disc. rev. denied, 334 N.C. 621 , 435 S.E.2d 336 (1993)). 2006The movant can meet the burden by either: "1) Proving that an essential element of the opposing party's claim is nonexistent; or 2) Showing through discovery that the opposing party cannot produce evidence sufficient to support an essential element of his claim nor [evidence] sufficient to surmount an affirmative defense to his claim." Price v. Davis, 132 N.C.App. 556, 559 , 512 S.E.2d 783, 786 (1999) (citing Messick v. Catawba County, 110 N.C.App. 707, 712 , 431 S.E.2d 489, 492-93 , disc. rev. denied, 334 N.C. 621 , 435 S.E.2d 336 (1993)). | 4 | 1998–2006 |
| Shuping v. Barber green | 4 | 1990–1996 |
| Little v. National Service Industries, Inc. green | 4 | 1989–1994 |
| Draughon v. Harnett County Board of Education green | 3 | 2009–2020 |
| Bostic Packaging, Inc. v. City of Monroe green | 3 | 2005–2018 |
| Farrelly v. Hamilton Square green | 3 | 2004–2016 |
| Strickland v. Lawrence green | 3 | 2013–2014 |
| East Market Street Square, Inc. v. Tycorp Pizza IV, Inc. neutral | 3 | 2007–2007 |
| Messick v. CATAWBA COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA green | 3 | 1999–2006 |
| Hinson v. Hinson green | 3 | 1993–1994 |
| Davis Ex Rel. Gholston v. Cumberland County Board of Education green | 2 | 2021–2021 |
| Camalier v. Jeffries green | 2 | 1998–2017 |
| Gaunt v. Pittaway neutral | 2 | 2016–2016 |
| Gaunt v. Pittaway neutral | 2 | 2016–2016 |
| Smith v. Whitmer green | 2 | 2010–2012 |
| Foster v. Winston-Salem Joint Venture green | 2 | 2012–2012 |
| Elliott v. Duke University, Inc. green | 2 | 2000–2011 |
| Beaver v. Hancock green | 2 | 1995–2007 |
| Taylor v. Ashburn green | 2 | 2004–2007 |
| Hines v. Yates green | 2 | 2006–2006 |
| Vares v. Vares green | 2 | 2006–2006 |
| Bruce-Terminix Company v. Zurich Ins. Co. green | 2 | 2005–2005 |
| Kessing v. National Mortgage Corporation green | 2 | 1980–2005 |
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.