presumptive rule (North Carolina) · Go Syfert
← North Carolina issues

presumptive rule in North Carolina

8 North Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1961–2022 4 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
Bueltel v. Lumber Mutual Insurancegreen
ncctapp · 1999 · cited in 4 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2022–2022
2 sentences

2022App. at 631 , 518 S.E.2d at 209 (“[I]t is apparent that when a choice of law provision is included in a contract, the parties intend to make an exception to the presumptive rule that the contract is governed by the law of the place where it was made.”).

2022App. at 631 , 518 S.E.2d at 209 (“[I]t is apparent that when a choice of law provision is included in a contract, the parties intend to make an exception to the presumptive rule that the contract is governed by the law of the place where it was made.”).

44
Napue v. Illinoisgreen
scotus · 1959 · cited in 1 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2012–2012
2 sentences

2012DNA testing [be performed] on various items submitted for analysis; that Ms. Black and Special Agent Elwell “decided to stop further testing of [these] items . . . because they believed further [DNA testing] would not prove inculpatory to [Defendant] and could possibly inculpate others;” and that Ms. Black knew when she made her factual basis statement at Defendant’s plea hearing “that the [SBI] had determined that it could not conclude that there was blood on the panties” and intentionally provided false contrary information to Judge Stanback. 10 “[A] conviction obtained through use of false

2012DNA testing [be performed] on various items submitted for analysis; that Ms. Black and Special Agent Elwell “decided to stop further testing of [these] items . . . because they believed further [DNA testing] would not prove inculpatory to [Defendant] and could possibly inculpate others;” and that Ms. Black knew when she made her factual basis statement at Defendant’s plea hearing “that the [SBI] had determined that it could not conclude that there was blood on the panties” and intentionally provided false contrary information to Judge Stanback. 10 “[A] conviction obtained through use of false

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
Torres v. McClain green
ncctapp · 2000
2 sentences

2022A choice of law provision is binding “on the interpreting court as long as they had a reasonable basis for their choice and the law of the chosen State does not violate a fundamental public policy of the state or otherwise applicable law.” Torres v. McClain, 140 N.C.

2022A choice of law provision is binding “on the interpreting court as long as they had a reasonable basis for their choice and the law of the chosen State does not violate a fundamental public policy of the state or otherwise applicable law.” Torres v. McClain, 140 N.C.

42022–2022
Coleman v. Farm Fresh, Inc. neutral
nc · 1999
1 sentence

2002Thus, the Court in Bueltel held that “following the logic of Land Co., it is apparent that when a choice of law provision is included in a contract, the parties intend to make an exception to the presumptive rule that the contract is governed by the law of the place where it was made.” Id.

12002–2002
State v. Garcia neutral
ncctapp · 1972
1 sentence

1973The order from which the State attempted to appeal does not in any way prevent the State from proceeding against the defendant on the charge set out in the bill of indictment; and if the State should elect to prosecute the defendant, any difficulty the court might have with respect to the constitutionality of G.S. 90-95 (f) (3) would be obviated by an adherence to the decision of this court filed 25 October 1972 in State v. Garcia, 16 N.C.

11973–1973
McCombs v. McLEAN TRUCKING COMPANY green
nc · 1960
2 sentences

1961In the case of McCombs v. Trucking Co., 252 N.C. 699 , 114 S.E. 2d 683 , this Court, speaking through Winborne, C.J., stated the correct rule in such cases as follows: “It being admitted that the collision involved in this action occurred in Virginia, ‘the question of liability for negligence must be determined by the law of that State.

1961In the case of McCombs v. Trucking Co., 252 N.C. 699 , 114 S.E. 2d 683 , this Court, speaking through Winborne, C.J., stated the correct rule in such cases as follows: “It being admitted that the collision involved in this action occurred in Virginia, ‘the question of liability for negligence must be determined by the law of that State.

11961–1961

Statutes the citing opinions construe

NC § N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-277 (4) NC § N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-75.4 (4) NC § N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1 (4) NC § N.C. Gen. Stat. § 24-2.1 (4) NC § N.C. Gen. Stat. § 53-165 (4) NC § N.C. Gen. Stat. § 53-190 (4)

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.

Where else courts name it

WA 46 (1986–2025) CA 36 (1886–2025) IL 32 (1890–2024) NJ 18 (1960–2026) TX 18 (1985–2026) MD 14 (1980–2026) IN 14 (1884–2023) PA 13 (1972–2023) DE 12 (1979–2025) UT 10 (1993–2019) MN 9 (1964–2015) MI 9 (1968–2022) WY 8 (1989–2015) DC 8 (1992–2011) NC 8 (1961–2022) AZ 8 (1997–2025) NY 7 (1937–2021) IA 6 (1978–2015) LA 6 (1959–2014) ND 5 (1986–2014) WI 5 (1989–2023) VT 5 (1990–2019) AL 5 (1845–2017) OH 5 (2006–2026) CO 4 (1986–2017) KS 4 (1986–2022) AK 4 (1986–2025) MO 4 (1991–2014) NM 3 (1988–2020) CT 3 (2002–2019) OK 3 (2011–2014) NV 2 (2015–2015) ME 2 (2002–2017) GA 2 (1979–1983) KY 2 (1975–2022) FL 2 (1984–2003) WV 2 (2015–2026) MA 2 (1932–2017) OR 2 (1914–1949) MS 2 (1966–2022) NH 2 (1984–2003) VA 2 (2008–2012) MT 2 (2007–2023)

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