8 North Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 2000–2015 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Whitacre Partnership v. Biosignia, Inc.green2 sentences2015Doctrine of Res Judicata A. Standard of Review " 'Under the doctrine of res judicata or claim preclusion, a final judgment on the merits in one action precludes a second suit based on the same cause of action between the same parties or their privies.' 'For res judicata to apply, a party must show that the previous suit resulted in a final judgment on the merits, that the same cause of action is involved, and that both the party asserting res judicata and the party against whom res judicata is asserted were either parties or stand in privity with parties.' " Williams v. Peabody, 217 N.C.App. 1 2015Doctrine of Res Judicata A. Standard of Review " 'Under the doctrine of res judicata or claim preclusion, a final judgment on the merits in one action precludes a second suit based on the same cause of action between the same parties or their privies.' 'For res judicata to apply, a party must show that the previous suit resulted in a final judgment on the merits, that the same cause of action is involved, and that both the party asserting res judicata and the party against whom res judicata is asserted were either parties or stand in privity with parties.' " Williams v. Peabody, 217 N.C.App. 1 | 3 | 6 |
Bryant v. Weyerhaeuser Co.green2 sentences2006"Under the doctrine of res judicata or claim preclusion, a final judgment on the merits in one action precludes a second suit based on the same cause of action between the same parties or their privies." Whitacre P'ship v. Biosignia, Inc., 358 N.C. 1, 15 , 591 *665 S.E.2d 870, 880 (2004) (internal quotation marks omitted). "`The essential elements of res judicata are: (1) a final judgment on the merits in a prior suit; (2) an identity of the cause of action in the prior suit and the present suit; and (3) an identity of parties or their privies in both suits.'" Branch v. Carolina Shoe Co., ___ 2006"Under the doctrine of res judicata or claim preclusion, a final judgment on the merits in one action precludes a second suit based on the same cause of action between the same parties or their privies." Whitacre P'ship v. Biosignia, Inc., 358 N.C. 1, 15 , 591 *665 S.E.2d 870, 880 (2004) (internal quotation marks omitted). "`The essential elements of res judicata are: (1) a final judgment on the merits in a prior suit; (2) an identity of the cause of action in the prior suit and the present suit; and (3) an identity of parties or their privies in both suits.'" Branch v. Carolina Shoe Co., ___ | 1 | 1 |
Branch v. Carolina Shoe Co.green2 sentences2006“Under the doctrine of res judicata or claim preclusion, a final judgment on the merits in one action precludes a second suit based on the same cause of action between the same parties or their privies.” Whitacre P’ship v. BioSignia, Inc., 358 N.C. 1, 15 , 591 S.E.2d 870, 880 (2004) (internal quotation marks omitted). “ ‘The essential elements of res judicata are: (1) a final judgment on the merits in a prior suit; (2) an identity of the cause of action in the prior suit and the present suit; and (3) an identity of parties or their privies in both suits.’ ” Branch v. Carolina Shoe Co., 172 N.C 2006"Under the doctrine of res judicata or claim preclusion, a final judgment on the merits in one action precludes a second suit based on the same cause of action between the same parties or their privies." Whitacre P'ship v. Biosignia, Inc., 358 N.C. 1, 15 , 591 *665 S.E.2d 870, 880 (2004) (internal quotation marks omitted). "`The essential elements of res judicata are: (1) a final judgment on the merits in a prior suit; (2) an identity of the cause of action in the prior suit and the present suit; and (3) an identity of parties or their privies in both suits.'" Branch v. Carolina Shoe Co., ___ | 1 | 1 |
Thomas M. McInnis & Associates, Inc. v. Hallgreen2 sentences2000McInnis & Assoc., Inc. v. Hall, 318 N.C. 421, 428 , 349 S.E.2d 552, 556 (1986). 2000McInnis & Assoc., Inc. v. Hall, 318 N.C. 421, 428 , 349 S.E.2d 552, 556 (1986). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Hughart v. Dasco Transportation, Inc.
green
2 sentences2011The courts have held that this "law of estoppel applies in workers' compensation proceedings as in all other cases." Hughart v. Dasco Transp., Inc. , 167 N.C.App. 685 , 691 , 606 S.E.2d 379 , 383-84 (2005). 2011The courts have held that this "law of estoppel applies in workers' compensation proceedings as in all other cases." Hughart v. Dasco Transp., Inc. , 167 N.C.App. 685 , 691 , 606 S.E.2d 379 , 383-84 (2005). | 2 | 2011–2011 |
Williams v. Peabody
green
2 sentences2015Doctrine of Res Judicata A. Standard of Review " 'Under the doctrine of res judicata or claim preclusion, a final judgment on the merits in one action precludes a second suit based on the same cause of action between the same parties or their privies.' 'For res judicata to apply, a party must show that the previous suit resulted in a final judgment on the merits, that the same cause of action is involved, and that both the party asserting res judicata and the party against whom res judicata is asserted were either parties or stand in privity with parties.' " Williams v. Peabody, 217 N.C.App. 1 2015Doctrine of Res Judicata A. Standard of Review " 'Under the doctrine of res judicata or claim preclusion, a final judgment on the merits in one action precludes a second suit based on the same cause of action between the same parties or their privies.' 'For res judicata to apply, a party must show that the previous suit resulted in a final judgment on the merits, that the same cause of action is involved, and that both the party asserting res judicata and the party against whom res judicata is asserted were either parties or stand in privity with parties.' " Williams v. Peabody, 217 N.C.App. 1 | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Naddeo v. Allstate Insurance
green
1 sentence2008Co., 139 N.C. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
McMurray v. SURETY FEDERAL SAV. & LOAN ASS'N
green
1 sentence2006Defendant herein contends that plaintiffs' civil complaint for damages for condemnation "asserted the same allegations of negligence found in their Industrial Commission tort claim." "The traditional elements of actionable negligence are the existence of a legal duty or obligation, breach of that duty, proximate cause and actual loss or damage." McMurray v. Surety Federal Savings & Loan Assoc., 82 N.C.App. 729, 731 , 348 S.E.2d 162 , 164 (1986). | 1 | 2006–2006 |
McMurray v. Surety Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n
neutral
1 sentence2006Defendant herein contends that plaintiffs' civil complaint for damages for condemnation "asserted the same allegations of negligence found in their Industrial Commission tort claim." "The traditional elements of actionable negligence are the existence of a legal duty or obligation, breach of that duty, proximate cause and actual loss or damage." McMurray v. Surety Federal Savings & Loan Assoc., 82 N.C.App. 729, 731 , 348 S.E.2d 162 , 164 (1986). | 1 | 2006–2006 |
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.