9 North Carolina opinions name it 3 courts 1984–2022 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Cator v. Catorgreen2 sentences2022EMGEE, LLC 2022-NCCOA-790 Opinion of the Court November 3, 2020, then [it] certainly constituted substantial performance.”2 ¶ 18 North Carolina recognizes the equitable doctrine of substantial performance, which “allow[s] a party to recover on a contract although [it] has not literally complied with its provisions.” Cator v. Cator, 70 N.C. 2022EMGEE, LLC 2022-NCCOA-790 Opinion of the Court November 3, 2020, then [it] certainly constituted substantial performance.”2 ¶ 18 North Carolina recognizes the equitable doctrine of substantial performance, which “allow[s] a party to recover on a contract although [it] has not literally complied with its provisions.” Cator v. Cator, 70 N.C. | 2 | 2 |
Morton Buildings, Inc. v. Tolsongreen1 sentence2013App. 119, 127 , 615 S.E.2d 906, 912 (2005) Therefore, we determine the specific performance clause in the Separation Agreement does not negate Plaintiff’s burden of proving the equitable requirements for specific performance. | 1 | 1 |
Frank LeRoux, Inc. v. Burnsgreen1 sentence2001The court in Frank LeRoux, Inc. upheld a specific performance clause after finding that “absent such a provision . . . plaintiff would be limited in his remedies to [the U.C.C.].” Id. at 170, 480 P.2d at 216 (1971). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Black v. Clark
green
2 sentences2022App. 719, 722 , 321 S.E.2d 36, 38 (1984) (citations omitted). “[T]he doctrine was conceived for use in a situation where the []plaintiff has given the []defendant a substantial portion of that for which he bargained and the performance is of such a nature that it cannot easily be returned.” Black v. Clark, 36 N.C. 2022Id. ¶ 19 A “time is of the essence” clause makes completion dates and times a material term of a contract, causing a material breach if performance is late. | 3 | 1984–2022 |
Strickland v. Washington
green
2 sentences2005The Supreme Court stated, "[i]n any case presenting an ineffectiveness claim, the performance inquiry must be whether counsel's assistance was reasonable considering all the circumstances." Id. at 688 , 104 S.Ct. at 2065 , 80 L.Ed.2d at 694 . 2005The Supreme Court stated, "[i]n any case presenting an ineffectiveness claim, the performance inquiry must be whether counsel's assistance was reasonable considering all the circumstances." Id. at 688 , 104 S.Ct. at 2065 , 80 L.Ed.2d at 694 . | 3 | 1988–2018 |
Martin v. Sheffer
green
2 sentences2013App. 802 , 403 S.E.2d 555 (1991), this Court upheld a specific performance clause in a commercial contract for the sale of goods. 2013Id. at 804 , 403 S.E.2d at 556-57. | 2 | 2001–2013 |
Rompilla v. Beard
red
1 sentence2009The performance of defense counsel did not sink to the level of that described in Rompilla v. Beard, 545 U.S. 374 (2005), which defendant cites as support. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
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.