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.
8 North Carolina opinions name it 3 courts 1938–2022 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 |
|---|---|---|
Corwin as Trustee for Beatrice Corwin Living Irrevocable Trust v. British American Tobacco PLCgreen2 sentences2022Id. at 616–17 (cleaned up). 2022Id. at 617 (cleaned up). 38. | 1 | 2 |
Becker v. Graber Builders, Inc.green1 sentence2008App. 787, 791 , 561 S.E.2d 905, 908-09 (2002) (holding that the plaintiff stated a claim for piercing the corporate veil by alleging that the individual defendant "(1) exercised `complete domination and control' over Graber Builders, Inc.; (2) that such control was used to violate the North Carolina Building Code and commit fraud against [the] defendant; and (3) that the aforesaid control and the violation of the Code proximately caused damages to [the] plaintiff in that she was required to install a new septic system"). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Powell
green
1 sentence2000Significantly, this Court held in State v. Powell, 10 N.C. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Thompson v. Lassiter
green
2 sentences1989They cite Thompson v. Lassiter, 246 N.C. 34 , 97 S.E.2d 492 (1957), in support of their position. 1989They cite Thompson v. Lassiter, 246 N.C. 34 , 97 S.E.2d 492 (1957), in support of their position. | 1 | 1989–1989 |
State v. Shuping
green
2 sentences1986Id. at 427 , 323 S.E. 2d at 354 . 1986Id. at 427 , 323 S.E. 2d at 354 . | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Hickory Furniture Mart, Inc. v. Burns
green
1 sentence1983In Hickory Furniture Mart v. Burns, 31 N.C. | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Davies v. Maryland Casualty Co.
neutral
1 sentence1938The reason for the rule, supported by these authorities, that the provision in the policy for the exclusive control of the defense is an important factor in determining whether the contract is one of insurance against liability or of indemnity only, is well stated by Bausman, J., in Davis v. Casualty Co., 89 Wash., 571 : “By taking over the defense the insurer assumes a feature of a liability contract as distinguished from an indemnity contract. | 1 | 1938–1938 |
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.