Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
11 North Carolina opinions name it 1 courts 1989–2026 6 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Harwoodgreen2 sentences2026Furthermore, “[w]e have repeatedly rejected attempts to change the substantive provisions of judgments under - 10 - the guise of clerical error.” Harwood, 243 N.C. App. at 429 , 777 S.E.2d at 119 (citation and quotation marks omitted). 2026Furthermore, “[w]e have repeatedly rejected attempts to change the substantive provisions of judgments under - 10 - the guise of clerical error.” Harwood, 243 N.C. App. at 429 , 777 S.E.2d at 119 (citation and quotation marks omitted). | 3 | 4 |
Hinson v. Hinsongreen2 sentences2006Hinson v. Hinson, 78 N.C.App. 613 , 615, 337 S.E.2d 663 , 664 (1985) ("We have repeatedly rejected attempts to change the substantive provisions of judgments under the guise of clerical error."), disc. review denied, 316 N.C. 377 , 342 S.E.2d 895 (1986). 2006Hinson v. Hinson, 78 N.C.App. 613 , 615, 337 S.E.2d 663 , 664 (1985) ("We have repeatedly rejected attempts to change the substantive provisions of judgments under the guise of clerical error."), disc. review denied, 316 N.C. 377 , 342 S.E.2d 895 (1986). | 2 | 4 |
Food Service Specialists v. Atlas Restaurant Management, Inc.green2 sentences2025Mgmt., Inc., 111 N.C. App. 257, 259 (1993) (“We have repeatedly rejected attempts to -7- change the substantive provisions of judgments under the guise of clerical error.” (citation omitted)). 2025Mgmt., Inc., 111 N.C. App. 257, 259 (1993) (“We have repeatedly rejected attempts to -7- change the substantive provisions of judgments under the guise of clerical error.” (citation omitted)). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Hinson v. Hinson
neutral
2 sentences2006Hinson v. Hinson, 78 N.C.App. 613, 615 , 337 S.E.2d 663, 664 (1985) ("We have repeatedly rejected attempts to change the substantive provisions of judgments under the guise of clerical error."), disc. review denied, 316 N.C. 377 , 342 S.E.2d 895 (1986). 2006Hinson v. Hinson, 78 N.C.App. 613 , 615, 337 S.E.2d 663 , 664 (1985) ("We have repeatedly rejected attempts to change the substantive provisions of judgments under the guise of clerical error."), disc. review denied, 316 N.C. 377 , 342 S.E.2d 895 (1986). | 2 | 2006–2006 |
State v. Tincher
green
1 sentence2025Id. (citations and quotation marks omitted). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Angarita v. Edwards
green
2 sentences2025Omitting the provision that the dismissal was “without prejudice,” even if done by mistake, is not a mere clerical error, and this assumed unwritten “correction” of the Order of Dismissal would have a substantive effect since it would “alter[ ] the effect of the original order.” Angarita v. Edwards, 278 N.C. App. 621 , 630, 863 S.E.2d 796 , 803 (2021). 2025Omitting the provision that the dismissal was “without prejudice,” even if done by mistake, is not a mere clerical error, and this assumed unwritten “correction” of the Order of Dismissal would have a substantive effect since it would “alter[ ] the effect of the original order.” Angarita v. Edwards, 278 N.C. App. 621 , 630, 863 S.E.2d 796 , 803 (2021). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
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.