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 2 courts 2001–2022 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
Phoenix America Corp. v. Brisseygreen2 sentences2011Id. at 531 , 265 S.E.2d at 479 (citation omitted). 2011Id. at 531 , 265 S.E.2d at 479 (citation omitted). | 3 | 4 |
A.R. Haire, Inc. v. St. Denisgreen2 sentences2010No single factor controls; rather, all factors must be weighed in light of fundamental fairness and the circumstances of the case. *155 Id. at 259-60 , 625 S.E.2d at 899 (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). 2010No single factor controls; rather, all factors must be weighed in light of fundamental fairness and the circumstances of the case. *155 Id. at 259-60 , 625 S.E.2d at 899 (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Farmer Ex Rel. Farmer v. Ferrisgreen2 sentences2001Id. at 531 , 265 S.E.2d at 479 (citing Farmer v. Ferris, 260 N.C. 619, 625 , 133 S.E.2d 492, 497 (1963)). 2001Id. at 531 , 265 S.E.2d at 479 (citing Farmer v. Ferris, 260 N.C. 619, 625 , 133 S.E.2d 492, 497 (1963)). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Dillon v. Numismatic Funding Corp.
green
2 sentences2022No single factor controls; rather, all factors must be weighed in light of fundamental fairness and the circumstances of the case.” Id. (cleaned up). ¶ 21 Applying the factors from A.R. 2022No single factor controls; rather, all factors must be weighed in light of fundamental fairness and the circumstances of the case.” Id. (cleaned up). ¶ 21 Applying the factors from A.R. | 3 | 2022–2022 |
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.
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.