9 North Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1910–2016 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 |
|---|---|---|
| No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in North Carolina. | ||
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in North Carolina. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Bateman v. Kramer Lumber Co.
green
2 sentences1928Bateman v. Lumber Co., 154 N. C., 248 , 70 S. E., 474 ; Kelly v. Lumber Co., 157 N. C., 175 , 72 S. E., 957 ; Powell v. Lumber Co., 163 N. C., 36 , 79 S. E., 272 . 1915In Hornthal v. Howcott, 154 N. C., 228 , the owner of the land conveyed the timber with the right to cut in four years, and then conveyed the land, and it was held that the grantee of the land was the owner of all the timber not cut within the time stipulated; and in Bateman v. Lumber Co., 154 N. C., 248 , in which there was an extension clause, that the notice that the privilege of extending the time would be exercised must be given to the grantee of the land. | 3 | 1915–1928 |
Grindstaff v. Watts
green
2 sentences1977Grindstaff v. Watts, 254 N.C. 568 , 119 S.E. 2d 784 . 1977Grindstaff v. Watts, 254 N.C. 568 , 119 S.E. 2d 784 . | 2 | 1962–1977 |
Dobias v. White
green
2 sentences2016Analysis Although attorney-client arrangements between two or more clients have been recognized by North Carolina courts for more than half a century, Dobias v. White, 240 N.C. 680 , 684-85, 83 S.E.2d 785 , 788 (1954), there is a dearth of controlling appellate precedent explaining the precise nature of these arrangements and the extension of privilege invoked in disputes with third parties. 4 Accordingly, our discussion of the issue presented in this case is best addressed by reference to not only the limited controlling authority from our state appellate courts, but also non-binding, persuas 2016Analysis Although attorney-client arrangements between two or more clients have been recognized by North Carolina courts for more than half a century, Dobias v. White, 240 N.C. 680 , 684-85, 83 S.E.2d 785 , 788 (1954), there is a dearth of controlling appellate precedent explaining the precise nature of these arrangements and the extension of privilege invoked in disputes with third parties. 4 Accordingly, our discussion of the issue presented in this case is best addressed by reference to not only the limited controlling authority from our state appellate courts, but also non-binding, persuas | 1 | 2016–2016 |
State v. Jones
green
1 sentence1979In State v. Jones, supra, 291 N.C. at 685 , 231 S.E. 2d 254 , the Supreme Court stated: The average layman is familiar with bloodstains; they are a part of common experience and knowledge. | 1 | 1979–1979 |
Massachusetts Bonding & Ins. Co. v. Norwich Pharmacal Co.
green
2 sentences1971See: Papadakis v. United States, 9 Cir., 208 F.2d 945 ; Massachusetts Bonding & Insurance Co. v. Norwich Pharmacal Co., 2 Cir., 18 F.2d 934 ; King v. State ex rel. 1971See: Papadakis v. United States, 208 F. 2d 945 ; Massachusetts Bonding & Insurance Co. v. Norwich Pharmacal Co., 18 F. 2d 934 ; King v. State ex rel Murdock Acceptance Corp., 222 So. 2d 393 (Miss.); 1964 pocket supplements to Wigmore on Evidence, 3d Ed, § 1530. | 1 | 1971–1971 |
Papadakis v. United States
green
2 sentences1971See: Papadakis v. United States, 9 Cir., 208 F.2d 945 ; Massachusetts Bonding & Insurance Co. v. Norwich Pharmacal Co., 2 Cir., 18 F.2d 934 ; King v. State ex rel. 1971See: Papadakis v. United States, 208 F. 2d 945 ; Massachusetts Bonding & Insurance Co. v. Norwich Pharmacal Co., 18 F. 2d 934 ; King v. State ex rel Murdock Acceptance Corp., 222 So. 2d 393 (Miss.); 1964 pocket supplements to Wigmore on Evidence, 3d Ed, § 1530. | 1 | 1971–1971 |
King v. State Ex Rel. Murdock Acceptance Corp.
green
1 sentence1971See: Papadakis v. United States, 208 F. 2d 945 ; Massachusetts Bonding & Insurance Co. v. Norwich Pharmacal Co., 18 F. 2d 934 ; King v. State ex rel Murdock Acceptance Corp., 222 So. 2d 393 (Miss.); 1964 pocket supplements to Wigmore on Evidence, 3d Ed, § 1530. | 1 | 1971–1971 |
Powell v. Fosburg Lumber Co.
neutral
2 sentences1928Bateman v. Lumber Co., 154 N. C., 248 , 70 S. E., 474 ; Kelly v. Lumber Co., 157 N. C., 175 , 72 S. E., 957 ; Powell v. Lumber Co., 163 N. C., 36 , 79 S. E., 272 . 1928Bateman v. Lumber Co., 154 N. C., 248 , 70 S. E., 474 ; Kelly v. Lumber Co., 157 N. C., 175 , 72 S. E., 957 ; Powell v. Lumber Co., 163 N. C., 36 , 79 S. E., 272 . | 1 | 1928–1928 |
Kelly v. Enterprise Lumber Co.
green
2 sentences1928Bateman v. Lumber Co., 154 N. C., 248 , 70 S. E., 474 ; Kelly v. Lumber Co., 157 N. C., 175 , 72 S. E., 957 ; Powell v. Lumber Co., 163 N. C., 36 , 79 S. E., 272 . 1928Bateman v. Lumber Co., 154 N. C., 248 , 70 S. E., 474 ; Kelly v. Lumber Co., 157 N. C., 175 , 72 S. E., 957 ; Powell v. Lumber Co., 163 N. C., 36 , 79 S. E., 272 . | 1 | 1928–1928 |
Lumber Co. v. Corey.
neutral
1 sentence1923For this position plaintiff cites for its chief reliance the following decisions: Lumber Co. v. Corey, 140 N. C., 462 ; Williams v. Lumber Co., 174 N. C., 229 ; Bateman v. Lumber Co., 154 N. C., 248 ; Ward v. Albertson, 165 N. C., 218 ; Bangert v. Lumber Co., 169 N. C., 628 ; Taylor v. Hunger, 169 N. C., 727 ; Hardy v. Ward, 150 N. C., 385 . | 1 | 1923–1923 |
Taylor v. . Munger
neutral
1 sentence1923For this position plaintiff cites for its chief reliance the following decisions: Lumber Co. v. Corey, 140 N. C., 462 ; Williams v. Lumber Co., 174 N. C., 229 ; Bateman v. Lumber Co., 154 N. C., 248 ; Ward v. Albertson, 165 N. C., 218 ; Bangert v. Lumber Co., 169 N. C., 628 ; Taylor v. Hunger, 169 N. C., 727 ; Hardy v. Ward, 150 N. C., 385 . | 1 | 1923–1923 |
Hardy v. . Ward
green
1 sentence1923For this position plaintiff cites for its chief reliance the following decisions: Lumber Co. v. Corey, 140 N. C., 462 ; Williams v. Lumber Co., 174 N. C., 229 ; Bateman v. Lumber Co., 154 N. C., 248 ; Ward v. Albertson, 165 N. C., 218 ; Bangert v. Lumber Co., 169 N. C., 628 ; Taylor v. Hunger, 169 N. C., 727 ; Hardy v. Ward, 150 N. C., 385 . | 1 | 1923–1923 |
Williams v. John L. Roper Lumber Co.
neutral
1 sentence1923For this position plaintiff cites for its chief reliance the following decisions: Lumber Co. v. Corey, 140 N. C., 462 ; Williams v. Lumber Co., 174 N. C., 229 ; Bateman v. Lumber Co., 154 N. C., 248 ; Ward v. Albertson, 165 N. C., 218 ; Bangert v. Lumber Co., 169 N. C., 628 ; Taylor v. Hunger, 169 N. C., 727 ; Hardy v. Ward, 150 N. C., 385 . | 1 | 1923–1923 |
Ward v. . Albertson
green
1 sentence1923For this position plaintiff cites for its chief reliance the following decisions: Lumber Co. v. Corey, 140 N. C., 462 ; Williams v. Lumber Co., 174 N. C., 229 ; Bateman v. Lumber Co., 154 N. C., 248 ; Ward v. Albertson, 165 N. C., 218 ; Bangert v. Lumber Co., 169 N. C., 628 ; Taylor v. Hunger, 169 N. C., 727 ; Hardy v. Ward, 150 N. C., 385 . | 1 | 1923–1923 |
Bangert v. John L. Roper Lumber Co.
green
1 sentence1923For this position plaintiff cites for its chief reliance the following decisions: Lumber Co. v. Corey, 140 N. C., 462 ; Williams v. Lumber Co., 174 N. C., 229 ; Bateman v. Lumber Co., 154 N. C., 248 ; Ward v. Albertson, 165 N. C., 218 ; Bangert v. Lumber Co., 169 N. C., 628 ; Taylor v. Hunger, 169 N. C., 727 ; Hardy v. Ward, 150 N. C., 385 . | 1 | 1923–1923 |
Hornthal v. . Howcott
neutral
1 sentence1915In Hornthal v. Howcott, 154 N. C., 228 , the owner of the land conveyed the timber with the right to cut in four years, and then conveyed the land, and it was held that the grantee of the land was the owner of all the timber not cut within the time stipulated; and in Bateman v. Lumber Co., 154 N. C., 248 , in which there was an extension clause, that the notice that the privilege of extending the time would be exercised must be given to the grantee of the land. | 1 | 1915–1915 |
Card v. Finch.
green
1 sentence1910In Card v. Finch, 142 N. C., 140 , this Court said: “The defendants suggest that the widow, life-tenant, being a party, those in succession are bound by the judgment, upon the doctrine of representation. | 1 | 1910–1910 |
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.