9 North Carolina opinions name it 3 courts 1984–2020 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Jobe v. International Insurancegreen1 sentence2018Co., 933 F. Supp. 844, 860 (D. | 1 | 1 |
O'BRYAN v. Ashlandgreen1 sentence2018See e.g., O’Bryan, 717 N.W.2d at 638–39 (refusing to adopt a blanket rule forbidding interest recovery and affirming the jury’s award of interest on tax underpayment); Jobe v. Int’l Ins. | 1 | 1 |
DeFusco v. Todesca Forte, Inc.green2 sentences2002Such a blanket defense, however, would not be consistent with the purpose of the public duty doctrine, which is to “ ‘shield[] the state and its political subdivisions from tort liability arising out of discretionary governmental actions.’ ” Stone, 347 N.C. at 482 , 495 S.E.2d at 716 (quoting DeFusco v. Todesca Forte, Inc., 683 A.2d 363, 365 (R.I. 1996)). 2002Such a blanket defense, however, would not be consistent with the purpose of the public duty doctrine, which is to “ ‘shield[] the state and its political subdivisions from tort liability arising out of discretionary governmental actions.’ ” Stone, 347 N.C. at 482 , 495 S.E.2d at 716 (quoting DeFusco v. Todesca Forte, Inc., 683 A.2d 363, 365 (R.I. 1996)). | 1 | 1 |
Lyon & Sons, Inc. v. N. C. State Board of Educationgreen2 sentences1998State Bd. of Educ., 238 N.C. 24, 27 , 76 S.E.2d 553, 555 (1953), or omissions, Phillips v. N.C. 1998State Bd. of Educ., 238 N.C. 24, 27 , 76 S.E.2d 553, 555 (1953), or omissions, Phillips v. N.C. | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Parker v. Brown
green
2 sentences2020Opinion of the Court antitrust suit under Chapter 75.” Plaintiffs claim that “the [trial] court’s reading of Madison Cablevision turns this Court’s decision on its head and effectively renders it a nullity,” arguing that, “if cities, towns, and quasi-municipal corporations have blanket immunity from all claims under Chapter 75, this Court’s statutory and policy- based analysis in Madison Cablevision was superfluous” given that “there is no mention in Madison Cablevision, even in dicta, that an entity other than the State could receive the blanket immunity from antitrust claims under Chapter 75 2020Opinion of the Court antitrust suit under Chapter 75.” Plaintiffs claim that “the [trial] court’s reading of Madison Cablevision turns this Court’s decision on its head and effectively renders it a nullity,” arguing that, “if cities, towns, and quasi-municipal corporations have blanket immunity from all claims under Chapter 75, this Court’s statutory and policy- based analysis in Madison Cablevision was superfluous” given that “there is no mention in Madison Cablevision, even in dicta, that an entity other than the State could receive the blanket immunity from antitrust claims under Chapter 75 | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corp. v. Calco Enterprises
green
1 sentence2014App. at 241 , 511 S.E.2d at 675 , the North Carolina Court of Appeals, on first reading appears to have adopted a blanket rule that a subsequent superior court judge may revisit a prior judge’s ruling on standing because questions of the court’s jurisdiction can always be revisited at any stage of the proceedings. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
State v. Campbell
green
1 sentence2014Instead, Campbell holds that evidence of a plea agreement “by one defendant is [not] competent as evidence of the guilt of a codefendant on the same charges.” Id. (emphasis added). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Stone v. North Carolina Department of Labor
green
2 sentences2002Such a blanket defense, however, would not be consistent with the purpose of the public duty doctrine, which is to “ ‘shield[] the state and its political subdivisions from tort liability arising out of discretionary governmental actions.’ ” Stone, 347 N.C. at 482 , 495 S.E.2d at 716 (quoting DeFusco v. Todesca Forte, Inc., 683 A.2d 363, 365 (R.I. 1996)). 2002Such a blanket defense, however, would not be consistent with the purpose of the public duty doctrine, which is to “ ‘shield[] the state and its political subdivisions from tort liability arising out of discretionary governmental actions.’ ” Stone, 347 N.C. at 482 , 495 S.E.2d at 716 (quoting DeFusco v. Todesca Forte, Inc., 683 A.2d 363, 365 (R.I. 1996)). | 1 | 2002–2002 |
State v. . Hall
green
2 sentences1989In State v. Hall, 183 N.C. 807 , 112 S.E. 431 (1922), the State appealed the trial court’s arrest of judgment as permitted under former Section 15-179(4). 1989In State v. Hall, 183 N.C. 807 , 112 S.E. 431 (1922), the State appealed the trial court’s arrest of judgment as permitted under former Section 15-179(4). | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Miller v. Register and Tribune Syndicate, Inc.
green
1 sentence1985Id. | 1 | 1985–1985 |
State v. Grier
green
2 sentences1984The subsequent decision of our Supreme Court in State v. Grier, 307 N.C. 628 , 300 S.E. 2d 351 (1983), establishing a blanket rule against admissibility of polygraph evidence in any trial, confirms and reinforces Maker-son. 1984The subsequent decision of our Supreme Court in State v. Grier, 307 N.C. 628 , 300 S.E. 2d 351 (1983), establishing a blanket rule against admissibility of polygraph evidence in any trial, confirms and reinforces Maker-son. | 1 | 1984–1984 |
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.