Isenhour test (North Carolina) · Go Syfert
← North Carolina issues

Isenhour test in North Carolina

8 North Carolina opinions name it 1 courts 2012–2025 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.

Followed or applied (4)

CaseFollowedCited
Leonard v. Bellgreen
ncctapp · 2017 · cited in 4 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2019–2025
2 sentences

2025App. at 222– 23, 828 S.E.2d at 532 (citing Leonard v. Bell, 254 N.C.

2025App. at 222– 23, 828 S.E.2d at 532 (citing Leonard v. Bell, 254 N.C.

34
McCullers v. Lewisgreen
ncctapp · 2019 · cited in 3 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2021–2025
2 sentences

2025“Courts applying this framework have recently held that a defendant seeking to establish public official immunity must demonstrate that all three of the Isenhour factors are present.” McCullers, 265 N.C.

2025“Courts applying this framework have recently held that a defendant seeking to establish public official immunity must demonstrate that all three of the Isenhour factors are present.” McCullers, 265 N.C.

23
Cherry v. Harrisgreen
ncctapp · 1993 · cited in 2 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2021–2021
2 sentences

2021App. 478, 480-81 , 429 S.E.2d 771, 772-73 (holding a forensic pathologist who conducted an autopsy and prepared reports in response to an official request by a county medical examiner satisfied the first factor of the Isenhour test because the medical examiner, a position created by statute, “had the statutory authority pursuant to [N.C.G.S.] § 130A-389(a) [] to order [] an autopsy be performed by a pathologist . . . designated by the Chief Medical Examiner), disc. rev. denied, 335 N.C. 171 , 436 S.E.2d 371 (1993).

2021App. 478, 480-81 , 429 S.E.2d 771, 772-73 (holding a forensic pathologist who conducted an autopsy and prepared reports in response to an official request by a county medical examiner satisfied the first factor of the Isenhour test because the medical examiner, a position created by statute, “had the statutory authority pursuant to [N.C.G.S.] § 130A-389(a) [] to order [] an autopsy be performed by a pathologist . . . designated by the Chief Medical Examiner), disc. rev. denied, 335 N.C. 171 , 436 S.E.2d 371 (1993).

22
Isenhour v. Huttogreen
nc · 1999 · cited in 1 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2024–2024
2 sentences

2024See 350 N.C. at 610 , 517 S.E.2d at 127 ; see also Cline, 278 N.C.

2024See 350 N.C. at 610 , 517 S.E.2d at 127 ; see also Cline, 278 N.C.

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (1)

CaseNegativeCited
Murray v. County of Persongreen
ncctapp · 2008 · cited in 1 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2012–2012
2 sentences

2012But see Murray v. County of Person, 191 N.C.

2012But see Murray v. County of Person, 191 N.C.

11

Also cited on this issue (4)

CaseCitedYears
Clark v. Velsicol Chemical Corp. neutral
nc · 1993
2 sentences

2021App. 478, 480-81 , 429 S.E.2d 771, 772-73 (holding a forensic pathologist who conducted an autopsy and prepared reports in response to an official request by a county medical examiner satisfied the first factor of the Isenhour test because the medical examiner, a position created by statute, “had the statutory authority pursuant to [N.C.G.S.] § 130A-389(a) [] to order [] an autopsy be performed by a pathologist . . . designated by the Chief Medical Examiner), disc. rev. denied, 335 N.C. 171 , 436 S.E.2d 371 (1993).

2021App. 478, 480-81 , 429 S.E.2d 771, 772-73 (holding a forensic pathologist who conducted an autopsy and prepared reports in response to an official request by a county medical examiner satisfied the first factor of the Isenhour test because the medical examiner, a position created by statute, “had the statutory authority pursuant to [N.C.G.S.] § 130A-389(a) [] to order [] an autopsy be performed by a pathologist . . . designated by the Chief Medical Examiner), disc. rev. denied, 335 N.C. 171 , 436 S.E.2d 371 (1993).

22021–2021
Considine v. West Point Dairy Products green
nc · 1993
2 sentences

2021App. 478, 480-81 , 429 S.E.2d 771, 772-73 (holding a forensic pathologist who conducted an autopsy and prepared reports in response to an official request by a county medical examiner satisfied the first factor of the Isenhour test because the medical examiner, a position created by statute, “had the statutory authority pursuant to [N.C.G.S.] § 130A-389(a) [] to order [] an autopsy be performed by a pathologist . . . designated by the Chief Medical Examiner), disc. rev. denied, 335 N.C. 171 , 436 S.E.2d 371 (1993).

2021App. 478, 480-81 , 429 S.E.2d 771, 772-73 (holding a forensic pathologist who conducted an autopsy and prepared reports in response to an official request by a county medical examiner satisfied the first factor of the Isenhour test because the medical examiner, a position created by statute, “had the statutory authority pursuant to [N.C.G.S.] § 130A-389(a) [] to order [] an autopsy be performed by a pathologist . . . designated by the Chief Medical Examiner), disc. rev. denied, 335 N.C. 171 , 436 S.E.2d 371 (1993).

22021–2021
Fraley v. Griffin green
ncctapp · 2011
2 sentences

2019Fraley v. Griffin , 217 N.C.

2019Fraley v. Griffin , 217 N.C.

12019–2019
Baker v. Smith green
ncctapp · 2012
2 sentences

2019But courts considering claims of public official immunity have made clear that, unlike the Isenhour factors, an oath of office is not "absolutely necessary[.]" Baker v. Smith , 224 N.C.

2019But courts considering claims of public official immunity have made clear that, unlike the Isenhour factors, an oath of office is not "absolutely necessary[.]" Baker v. Smith , 224 N.C.

12019–2019

Statutes the citing opinions construe

NC § N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1 (5) NC § N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-277 (4) NC § N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7A-27 (3)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check