9 North Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1995–2026 5 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 |
|---|---|---|
Cordaro v. Harrington Bank, FSBgreen2 sentences2026“In every contract there is an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing that neither party will do anything which injures the right of the other to receive the benefits of the agreement.” Bicycle Transit Auth., Inc. v. Bell, 314 N.C. 219, 228 (1985) (citation modified). “[W]here a party’s claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing is based upon the same acts as its claim for breach of contract, [North Carolina courts] treat the former claim as ‘part and parcel’ of the latter.” Cordaro v. Harrington Bank, FSB, 260 N.C. 2026Under North Carolina law, “where a party’s claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing is based on the same acts as its claim for breach of contract, we treat the former as part and parcel of the latter.” Cordaro v. Harrington Bank, FSB, 260 N.C. | 1 | 6 |
Bicycle Transit Authority, Inc. v. Bellgreen1 sentence2026“In every contract there is an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing that neither party will do anything which injures the right of the other to receive the benefits of the agreement.” Bicycle Transit Auth., Inc. v. Bell, 314 N.C. 219, 228 (1985) (citation modified). “[W]here a party’s claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing is based upon the same acts as its claim for breach of contract, [North Carolina courts] treat the former claim as ‘part and parcel’ of the latter.” Cordaro v. Harrington Bank, FSB, 260 N.C. | 1 | 1 |
Dalton v. Campgreen2 sentences2019A claim for unfair or deceptive trade practices requires a plaintiff to show (1) that the “defendant committed an unfair or deceptive act or practice,” (2) that the act or practice “was in or affecting commerce,” and (3) that “the act proximately caused injury to the plaintiff.” Dalton v. Camp, 353 N.C. 647, 656 , 548 S.E.2d 704, 711 (2001). 2019A claim for unfair or deceptive trade practices requires a plaintiff to show (1) that the “defendant committed an unfair or deceptive act or practice,” (2) that the act or practice “was in or affecting commerce,” and (3) that “the act proximately caused injury to the plaintiff.” Dalton v. Camp, 353 N.C. 647, 656 , 548 S.E.2d 704, 711 (2001). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Lyonsgreen2 sentences1995See also State v. Lyons, 330 N.C. 298 , 412 S.E.2d 308 (1991) (discussing cases holding that a disjunctive instruction resulted in an ambiguous verdict and cases holding that the disjunctive instruction was not error since the acts in the instruction were merely different means of committing the same crime). 1995See also State v. Lyons, 330 N.C. 298 , 412 S.E.2d 308 (1991) (discussing cases holding that a disjunctive instruction resulted in an ambiguous verdict and cases holding that the disjunctive instruction was not error since the acts in the instruction were merely different means of committing the same crime). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Johnson v. United States
green
1 sentence2008Treating postrevocation sanctions as part of the penalty for the initial offense, however (as most courts have done), avoids these difficulties. 529 U.S. at 700-01 , 146 L. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
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.