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 1981–2022 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 |
|---|---|---|
Costin v. Shellgreen2 sentences2022We disagree. ¶ 25 Under the doctrine of laches, a showing is required that (1) the party against whom the doctrine is charged “negligently failed to assert an enforceable right within a reasonable period of time, . . . and (2) that the propounder of the doctrine was prejudiced by the delay in bringing the action.” Costin v. Shell, 53 N.C. 2022We disagree. ¶ 25 Under the doctrine of laches, a showing is required that (1) the party against whom the doctrine is charged “negligently failed to assert an enforceable right within a reasonable period of time, . . . and (2) that the propounder of the doctrine was prejudiced by the delay in bringing the action.” Costin v. Shell, 53 N.C. | 3 | 6 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in North Carolina. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Builders Supplies Co. of Goldsboro, NC, Inc. v. Gainey
green
2 sentences1981The doctrine of laches requires a showing (1) that the petitioner negligently failed to assert an enforceable right within a reasonable period of time, Builders Supplies Co. v. Gainey, 282 N.C. 261 , 192 S.E. 2d 449 (1972); and (2) that the propounder of the doctrine was prejudiced by the delay in bringing the action, Rape v. Lyerly, 287 N.C. 601 , 215 S.E. 2d 737 (1975). 1981The doctrine of laches requires a showing (1) that the petitioner negligently failed to assert an enforceable right within a reasonable period of time, Builders Supplies Co. v. Gainey, 282 N.C. 261 , 192 S.E. 2d 449 (1972); and (2) that the propounder of the doctrine was prejudiced by the delay in bringing the action, Rape v. Lyerly, 287 N.C. 601 , 215 S.E. 2d 737 (1975). | 2 | 1981–2005 |
Rape v. Lyerly
green
2 sentences1981The doctrine of laches requires a showing (1) that the petitioner negligently failed to assert an enforceable right within a reasonable period of time, Builders Supplies Co. v. Gainey, 282 N.C. 261 , 192 S.E. 2d 449 (1972); and (2) that the propounder of the doctrine was prejudiced by the delay in bringing the action, Rape v. Lyerly, 287 N.C. 601 , 215 S.E. 2d 737 (1975). 1981The doctrine of laches requires a showing (1) that the petitioner negligently failed to assert an enforceable right within a reasonable period of time, Builders Supplies Co. v. Gainey, 282 N.C. 261 , 192 S.E. 2d 449 (1972); and (2) that the propounder of the doctrine was prejudiced by the delay in bringing the action, Rape v. Lyerly, 287 N.C. 601 , 215 S.E. 2d 737 (1975). | 2 | 1981–2005 |
Sunbelt Rentals, Inc. v. Head & Engquist Equipment, L.L.C.
green
2 sentences2007The doctrine of laches requires a showing "(1) that petitioner negligently failed to assert an enforceable right within a reasonable period of time, and (2) that the propounder of the doctrine was prejudiced by the delay in bringing the action." Sunbelt Rentals, Inc. v. Head Engquist Equip., L.L.C. , *Page 8 174 N.C.App. 49 , 63 , 620 S.E.2d 222 , 232 (2005) (citing Costin v. Shell , 53 N.C.App. 117 , 120 , 280 S.E.2d 42 , 44 (1981)). 5. 2007The doctrine of laches requires a showing "(1) that petitioner negligently failed to assert an enforceable right within a reasonable period of time, and (2) that the propounder of the doctrine was prejudiced by the delay in bringing the action." Sunbelt Rentals, Inc. v. Head Engquist Equip., L.L.C. , *Page 8 174 N.C.App. 49 , 63 , 620 S.E.2d 222 , 232 (2005) (citing Costin v. Shell , 53 N.C.App. 117 , 120 , 280 S.E.2d 42 , 44 (1981)). 5. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Estate of Apple Ex Rel. Apple v. Commercial Courier Express, Inc.
green
2 sentences2006"If a party does not have standing to bring a claim, a court has no subject matter jurisdiction to hear the claim." Estate of Apple v. Commercial Courier Express, Inc., 168 N.C.App. 175 , 177, 607 S.E.2d 14 , 16, disc. review denied, 359 N.C. 632 , 613 S.E.2d 688 (2005). 2006"If a party does not have standing to bring a claim, a court has no subject matter jurisdiction to hear the claim." Estate of Apple v. Commercial Courier Express, Inc., 168 N.C.App. 175 , 177, 607 S.E.2d 14 , 16, disc. review denied, 359 N.C. 632 , 613 S.E.2d 688 (2005). | 1 | 2006–2006 |
In the Matter of Dmh
green
1 sentence2006"If a party does not have standing to bring a claim, a court has no subject matter jurisdiction to hear the claim." Estate of Apple v. Commercial Courier Express, Inc., 168 N.C.App. 175 , 177, 607 S.E.2d 14 , 16, disc. review denied, 359 N.C. 632 , 613 S.E.2d 688 (2005). | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Douglas v. Easley
green
1 sentence2006"If a party does not have standing to bring a claim, a court has no subject matter jurisdiction to hear the claim." Estate of Apple v. Commercial Courier Express, Inc., 168 N.C.App. 175 , 177, 607 S.E.2d 14 , 16, disc. review denied, 359 N.C. 632 , 613 S.E.2d 688 (2005). | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Butler v. Nationwide Mutual
neutral
1 sentence1987App. 117 , 280 S.E. 2d 42 , disc. rev. denied, 304 N.C. 193 , 285 S.E. 2d 97 (1981), we stated the applicable rules as follows: The doctrine of laches requires a showing (1) that the [plaintiff] negligently failed to assert an enforceable right within a reasonable time, . . . and (2) that the propounder of the doctrine was prejudiced by the delay in bringing the action. . . . | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Costin v. Shell
neutral
1 sentence1987App. 117 , 280 S.E. 2d 42 , disc. rev. denied, 304 N.C. 193 , 285 S.E. 2d 97 (1981), we stated the applicable rules as follows: The doctrine of laches requires a showing (1) that the [plaintiff] negligently failed to assert an enforceable right within a reasonable time, . . . and (2) that the propounder of the doctrine was prejudiced by the delay in bringing the action. . . . | 1 | 1987–1987 |
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.