right but a discretionary privilege (North Carolina) · Go Syfert
← North Carolina issues

right but a discretionary privilege in North Carolina

8 North Carolina opinions name it 3 courts 1981–2018 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.

Followed or applied (4)

CaseFollowedCited
Leonard v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp.green
ncctapp · 1982 · cited in 5 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 1990–2006
2 sentences

2006Admission of counsel in North Carolina pro hac vice is not a right but a discretionary privilege." Leonard v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp., 57 N.C.App. 553 , 555, 291 S.E.2d 828 , 829 (1982).

2006Admission of counsel in North Carolina pro hac vice is not a right but a discretionary privilege.” Leonard v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp., 57 N.C.

25
State v. Huntergreen
nc · 1976 · cited in 2 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 1981–2000
2 sentences

2000"Admission of counsel in North Carolina pro hac vice is not a right but a discretionary privilege." Leonard v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp., 57 N.C.App. 553, 555 , 291 S.E.2d 828, 829 (1982). "`It is permissive and subject to the sound discretion of the Court.'" Id. (quoting Hunter, 290 N.C. at 568 , 227 S.E.2d at 542 ).

2000"Admission of counsel in North Carolina pro hac vice is not a right but a discretionary privilege." Leonard v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp., 57 N.C.App. 553, 555 , 291 S.E.2d 828, 829 (1982). "`It is permissive and subject to the sound discretion of the Court.'" Id. (quoting Hunter, 290 N.C. at 568 , 227 S.E.2d at 542 ).

12
Couch v. Private Diagnostic Clinicgreen
ncctapp · 2001 · cited in 1 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2018–2018
2 sentences

2018North Carolina law is clear that pro hac vice admission to practice in the courts of this State “is not a right but a discretionary privilege.” Couch v. Private Diagnostic Clinic, 146 N.C.

2018App. 658, 669 , 554 S.E.2d 356, 364 (2001); see N.C.

11
Sisk v. Transylvania Community Hospital, Inc.green
nc · 2010 · cited in 1 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2013–2013
2 sentences

2013“This status is . . . not a right but a discretionary privilege.” Sisk v. Transylvania Cmty. Hosp., Inc., 364 N.C. 172, 178-79 , 695 S.E.2d 429, 434 (2010) (citation and quotation marks omitted).

2013“This status is . . . not a right but a discretionary privilege.” Sisk v. Transylvania Cmty. Hosp., Inc., 364 N.C. 172, 178-79 , 695 S.E.2d 429, 434 (2010) (citation and quotation marks omitted).

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 (3)

CaseCitedYears
In Re Contempt Proceeding of Smith green
nc · 1981
2 sentences

2006"The right to appear pro hac vice in the courts of another state is not a right protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment." In re Smith, 301 N.C. 621 , 630, 272 S.E.2d 834 , 840 (1981).

2006"The right to appear pro hac vice in the courts of another state is not a right protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment." In re Smith, 301 N.C. 621 , 630, 272 S.E.2d 834 , 840 (1981).

12006–2006
Smith v. Beaufort County Hosp. Ass'n, Inc. green
ncctapp · 2000
2 sentences

2001It is well-established that the “ ‘[a]dmission of counsel in North Carolina pro hac vice is not a right but a discretionary privilege.’ ” Smith, 141 N.C.

2001App. at 209 , 540 S.E.2d at 779 (quoting Leonard v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp., 57 N.C.

12001–2001
Graves v. Sneed green
scotus · 1977
1 sentence

1981“It is permissive and subject to the sound discretion of the Court.” State v. Hunter, 290 N.C. 556, 568 , 227 S.E.2d 535, 542 (1976), cert. den., 429 *630 U.S. 1093, 51 L.Ed.2d 539 , 97 S.Ct. 1106 (1977).

11981–1981

Statutes the citing opinions construe

NC § N.C. Gen. Stat. § 84-4.1 (8) NC § N.C. Gen. Stat. § 84-4.2 (5) NC § N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1 (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