9 North Carolina opinions name it 1 courts 2007–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Archer v. Rockingham Countygreen2 sentences2024App. 550 , 558 548 S.E.2d 788, 793 (2001) (noting that, when considering the applicability of sovereign immunity as a defense to breach of a governmental employment contract, “[this Court is] not now concerned with the merits of plaintiff's contract action. whether plaintiffs are ultimately entitled to relief [is a] question[ ] not properly before us”); see also Smith, 289 N.C. at 322 , 222 S.E.2d at 424 (“We are not now concerned with the merits of the controversy.... 2022App. at 127 , 759 S.E.2d at 310 (“This Court has consistently held that we are not to consider the merits of a claim when addressing the applicability of sovereign immunity as a potential defense to liability.” (citing Archer, 144 N.C. | 4 | 6 |
Can Am South, LLC v. State, North Carolina Department of Health & Human Servicesgreen2 sentences2022App. at 127 , 759 S.E.2d at 310 (“This Court has consistently held that we are not to consider the merits of a claim when addressing the applicability of sovereign immunity as a potential defense to liability.” (citing Archer, 144 N.C. 2022App. at 127 , 759 S.E.2d at 310 (“This Court has consistently held that we are not to consider the merits of a claim when addressing the applicability of sovereign immunity as a potential defense to liability.” (citing Archer, 144 N.C. | 4 | 4 |
Smith v. Stategreen2 sentences2024App. 550 , 558 548 S.E.2d 788, 793 (2001) (noting that, when considering the applicability of sovereign immunity as a defense to breach of a governmental employment contract, “[this Court is] not now concerned with the merits of plaintiff's contract action. whether plaintiffs are ultimately entitled to relief [is a] question[ ] not properly before us”); see also Smith, 289 N.C. at 322 , 222 S.E.2d at 424 (“We are not now concerned with the merits of the controversy.... 2024App. 550 , 558 548 S.E.2d 788, 793 (2001) (noting that, when considering the applicability of sovereign immunity as a defense to breach of a governmental employment contract, “[this Court is] not now concerned with the merits of plaintiff's contract action. whether plaintiffs are ultimately entitled to relief [is a] question[ ] not properly before us”); see also Smith, 289 N.C. at 322 , 222 S.E.2d at 424 (“We are not now concerned with the merits of the controversy.... | 2 | 4 |
Wray v. City of Greensborogreen2 sentences2022App. at 558 , 548 S.E.2d at 793 and Smith, 289 N.C. at 322 , 222 S.E.2d at 424 )); see also Wray, 370 N.C. at 50 , 802 S.E.2d at 900 (“Although we hold that dismissal of the complaint was not warranted, like the Court of Appeals, we express no opinion on the merits of [the] plaintiff’s contract action.”). 2022App. at 558 , 548 S.E.2d at 793 and Smith, 289 N.C. at 322 , 222 S.E.2d at 424 )); see also Wray, 370 N.C. at 50 , 802 S.E.2d at 900 (“Although we hold that dismissal of the complaint was not warranted, like the Court of Appeals, we express no opinion on the merits of [the] plaintiff’s contract action.”). | 2 | 2 |
Anderson v. Assimosgreen1 sentence2023See id. ¶¶ 30- 31 (involving issues of whether an implied-in-fact contract could waive sovereign immunity and whether the plaintiffs had “pled a valid implied-in-fact contract”). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Archer v. Rockingham Cty
green
2 sentences2014App. 550, 558 , 548 S.E.2d 788, 793 (2001), disc. review denied, 355 N.C. 210 , 559 S.E.2d 796 (2002). 2014App. 550, 558 , 548 S.E.2d 788, 793 (2001), disc. review denied, 355 N.C. 210 , 559 S.E.2d 796 (2002). | 2 | 2007–2014 |
Lake v. State Health Plan for Teachers & State Employees
green
1 sentence2019Lake , 234 N.C. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
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.