two-tiered analysis (North Carolina) · Go Syfert
← North Carolina issues

two-tiered analysis in North Carolina

9 North Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1983–2025 1 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.

Followed or applied (2)

CaseFollowedCited
Dixon v. Petersgreen
ncctapp · 1983 · cited in 3 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 1998–2001
2 sentences

2001Dixon v. Peters, 63 N.C.

1998Dixon v. Peters, 63 N.C.

13
Town of Beech Mountain v. County of Wataugagreen
nc · 1989 · cited in 1 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2025–2025
2 sentences

2025When assessing an Equal Protection Clause claim that the State treated one class of people different from another, courts “employ a two-tiered analysis.” Town of Beech Mountain v. Cnty. of Watauga, 324 N.C. 409, 412 (1989).

2025“When a legislative act operates to the disadvantage of a suspect class or interferes with the exercise of a fundamental right, the upper tier or ‘strict scrutiny’ standard is applied.” Id.

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in North Carolina. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (4)

CaseCitedYears
Williamson v. Lee Optical of Oklahoma, Inc. green
scotus · 1955
2 sentences

1998Dixon v. Peters, 63 N.C.App. 592, 598 , 306 S.E.2d 477, 481 (1983) (citing Williamson v. Lee Optical, 348 U.S. 483 , 75 S.Ct. 461 , 99 L.Ed. 563 (1955)).

1998Dixon v. Peters, 63 N.C.App. 592, 598 , 306 S.E.2d 477, 481 (1983) (citing Williamson v. Lee Optical, 348 U.S. 483 , 75 S.Ct. 461 , 99 L.Ed. 563 (1955)).

21983–1998
Texfi Industries, Inc. v. City of Fayetteville green
nc · 1980
2 sentences

1989Texfi Industries v. City of Fayetteville, 301 N.C. 1 , 269 S.E. 2d 142 (1980).

1989Texfi Industries v. City of Fayetteville, 301 N.C. 1 , 269 S.E. 2d 142 (1980).

21984–1989
In Re the Consolidated Appeals of Certain Timber Companies From the Denial of Use Value Assessment & Taxation by Certain Counties green
ncctapp · 1990
1 sentence

1993Appeals of Certain Timber Companies, 98 N.C.

11993–1993
Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 98,860 Athalie Doris Joy v. Nelson L. North, Nelson L. North green
ca2 · 1982
2 sentences

1986We find, however, that the Zapata court, in advancing the two-tiered analysis, provides only “an illusory improvement,” Cox, 1982 Duke L.J. 975 ; potentially raises more problems than it offers solutions, see Joy v. North, 692 F. 2d 880 (Cardamone, J. dissenting); and in the absence of standards or guidelines for the rendering of a court’s own independent judgment, offers no assurance that decisions will be consistent.

1986We find, however, that the Zapata court, in advancing the two-tiered analysis, provides only "an illusory improvement," Cox, 1982 Duke L.J. 975 ; potentially raises more problems than it offers solutions, see Joy v. North, 692 F.2d 880 (Cardamone, J. dissenting); and in the absence of standards or guidelines for the rendering of a court's own independent judgment, offers no assurance that decisions will be consistent.

11986–1986

Where else courts name it

IN 887 (1985–2026) OH 115 (1990–2026) LA 51 (1989–2025) ID 46 (1975–2026) NY 36 (1976–2026) IL 33 (1981–2026) FL 16 (1982–2012) AL 13 (1984–2002) MN 12 (1986–2017) MI 11 (1978–2009) TX 10 (1986–2024) GA 10 (1993–2015) NC 9 (1983–2025) CA 9 (1975–2014) PA 8 (1973–2020) MT 8 (1990–2008) RI 8 (1990–2023) WI 7 (1992–2025) MD 5 (1981–2019) MS 5 (1993–2004) NJ 5 (1977–2022) CO 5 (1999–2019) UT 4 (1997–2007) OK 4 (1984–2009) AK 4 (1974–2021) WV 3 (1988–2021) CT 3 (1982–1996) OR 2 (1985–2013) HI 2 (2004–2010) NM 2 (1988–2006) MA 2 (1991–2018) AZ 2 (2015–2024) WA 2 (2004–2004)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check