65 North Carolina opinions name it 3 courts 1995–2019 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 |
|---|---|---|
Austin v. Continental General Tiregreen2 sentences2003See Austin , 141 N.C. 2003See Austin , 141 N.C. | 60 | 60 |
State v. Mainesgreen2 sentences2019In addition to possessing stolen property, the second element of the doctrine requires that the defendant have "the power and intent to control the goods." Maines , 301 N.C. at 674 , 273 S.E.2d at 293 (citations omitted) (emphasis added). 2019In addition to possessing stolen property, the second element of the doctrine requires that the defendant have "the power and intent to control the goods." Maines , 301 N.C. at 674 , 273 S.E.2d at 293 (citations omitted) (emphasis added). | 2 | 2 |
Allison v. Food Lion, Inc.green2 sentences1995We next consider the second element of a claim for malicious prosecutioni.e., that defendants initiated the public nuisance proceeding *908 "maliciously and without probable cause." (a.) Probable Cause In a malicious prosecution action, "probable cause `has been properly defined as the existence of such facts and circumstances, known to [defendants] at the time, as would induce a reasonable man to commence a prosecution.'" Pitts v. Pizza, Inc., 296 N.C. 81, 87 , 249 S.E.2d 375, 379 (1978) (quoting Morgan v. Stewart, 144 N.C. 424, 430 , 57 S.E. 149, 151 (1907)); see also Allison v. Food Lion, 1995We next consider the second element of a claim for malicious prosecutioni.e., that defendants initiated the public nuisance proceeding *908 "maliciously and without probable cause." (a.) Probable Cause In a malicious prosecution action, "probable cause `has been properly defined as the existence of such facts and circumstances, known to [defendants] at the time, as would induce a reasonable man to commence a prosecution.'" Pitts v. Pizza, Inc., 296 N.C. 81, 87 , 249 S.E.2d 375, 379 (1978) (quoting Morgan v. Stewart, 144 N.C. 424, 430 , 57 S.E. 149, 151 (1907)); see also Allison v. Food Lion, | 1 | 1 |
Pitts v. Village Inn Pizza, Inc.green2 sentences1995We next consider the second element of a claim for malicious prosecutioni.e., that defendants initiated the public nuisance proceeding *908 "maliciously and without probable cause." (a.) Probable Cause In a malicious prosecution action, "probable cause `has been properly defined as the existence of such facts and circumstances, known to [defendants] at the time, as would induce a reasonable man to commence a prosecution.'" Pitts v. Pizza, Inc., 296 N.C. 81, 87 , 249 S.E.2d 375, 379 (1978) (quoting Morgan v. Stewart, 144 N.C. 424, 430 , 57 S.E. 149, 151 (1907)); see also Allison v. Food Lion, 1995We next consider the second element of a claim for malicious prosecutioni.e., that defendants initiated the public nuisance proceeding *908 "maliciously and without probable cause." (a.) Probable Cause In a malicious prosecution action, "probable cause `has been properly defined as the existence of such facts and circumstances, known to [defendants] at the time, as would induce a reasonable man to commence a prosecution.'" Pitts v. Pizza, Inc., 296 N.C. 81, 87 , 249 S.E.2d 375, 379 (1978) (quoting Morgan v. Stewart, 144 N.C. 424, 430 , 57 S.E. 149, 151 (1907)); see also Allison v. Food Lion, | 1 | 1 |
Morgan v. . Stewartgreen2 sentences1995We next consider the second element of a claim for malicious prosecutioni.e., that defendants initiated the public nuisance proceeding *908 "maliciously and without probable cause." (a.) Probable Cause In a malicious prosecution action, "probable cause `has been properly defined as the existence of such facts and circumstances, known to [defendants] at the time, as would induce a reasonable man to commence a prosecution.'" Pitts v. Pizza, Inc., 296 N.C. 81, 87 , 249 S.E.2d 375, 379 (1978) (quoting Morgan v. Stewart, 144 N.C. 424, 430 , 57 S.E. 149, 151 (1907)); see also Allison v. Food Lion, 1995We next consider the second element of a claim for malicious prosecutioni.e., that defendants initiated the public nuisance proceeding *908 "maliciously and without probable cause." (a.) Probable Cause In a malicious prosecution action, "probable cause `has been properly defined as the existence of such facts and circumstances, known to [defendants] at the time, as would induce a reasonable man to commence a prosecution.'" Pitts v. Pizza, Inc., 296 N.C. 81, 87 , 249 S.E.2d 375, 379 (1978) (quoting Morgan v. Stewart, 144 N.C. 424, 430 , 57 S.E. 149, 151 (1907)); see also Allison v. Food Lion, | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Christina Matvia v. Bald Head Island Management, Incorporated, and Richard Terbush
green
1 sentence2018Thus, "evidence that the plaintiff failed to utilize the [employer's] complaint procedure will normally suffice to satisfy [the employer's] burden under the second element of the defense." Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Wade Ex Rel. Wade v. Jones Sausage Co.
green
2 sentences2015Wade, 239 N.C. at 525 , 80 S.E.2d at 151 . 2015Wade, 239 N.C. at 525 , 80 S.E.2d at 151 . | 1 | 2015–2015 |
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.