8 North Carolina opinions name it 3 courts 1975–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
Carey v. 24 Hour Fitness, USA, Inc.green1 sentence2024Mgmt., L.L.C., 397 F. App’x 63, 68 (5th Cir. 2010) (holding arbitration promise in a multi-level marketing contract was illusory when the promisor “essentially could renege on its promise to arbitrate by merely posting an amendment to the agreement on its website”); Carey v. 24 Hour Fitness, USA, Inc., 669 F.3d 202, 206 (5th Cir. 2012) (holding an employment contract’s arbitration clause was illusory under Texas law where another provision of the contract allowed the employer to unilaterally modify all provisions of the agreement and did not contain a savings clause); Floss v. Ryan’s Fam. | 1 | 1 |
Juan Torres v. S.G.E. Management, L.L.C., egreen1 sentence2024Mgmt., L.L.C., 397 F. App’x 63, 68 (5th Cir. 2010) (holding arbitration promise in a multi-level marketing contract was illusory when the promisor “essentially could renege on its promise to arbitrate by merely posting an amendment to the agreement on its website”); Carey v. 24 Hour Fitness, USA, Inc., 669 F.3d 202, 206 (5th Cir. 2012) (holding an employment contract’s arbitration clause was illusory under Texas law where another provision of the contract allowed the employer to unilaterally modify all provisions of the agreement and did not contain a savings clause); Floss v. Ryan’s Fam. | 1 | 1 |
Peleg v. Neiman Marcus Group, Inc.green1 sentence2024See, e.g., Peleg, 140 Cal. Rptr. 3d at 59–62. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Browngreen2 sentences2023Code Ann. § 16 - 13-30, via the session law, also included a savings clause which provided that the “amendment to § 16-13-30 does not affect liability incurred under the prior version of the statute.” State v. Brown, 402 S.C. 119 , 740 S.E.2d 493, 497 (S.C. 2013). 2023Code Ann. § 16 - 13-30, via the session law, also included a savings clause which provided that the “amendment to § 16-13-30 does not affect liability incurred under the prior version of the statute.” State v. Brown, 402 S.C. 119 , 740 S.E.2d 493, 497 (S.C. 2013). | 1 | 1 |
Reinninger v. Prestige Fabricators, Inc.green1 sentence2019ECF No. 458 (15 CVS 1) (“There is no basis to impute any knowledge Lomax may have had to any other Plaintiff other than the entities for which he is an officer, and WWI does not suggest otherwise.”)); see also Reinninger v. Prestige Fabricators, Inc., 136 N.C. | 1 | 1 |
Town of Ogunquit v. McGarvagreen1 sentence2002See Town of Ogunquit v. McGarva, 570 A.2d 320, 321 (Me. 1990); City of New Orleans v. Leeco, Inc., 76 So.2d 387, 390 (La. 1954); City of Rochester v. Crittenden Park Riding Academy, 238 N.Y.S. 215, 215 (N.Y. | 1 | 1 |
City of Rochester v. Crittenden Park Riding Academy, Inc.green1 sentence2002See Town of Ogunquit v. McGarva, 570 A.2d 320, 321 (Me. 1990); City of New Orleans v. Leeco, Inc., 76 So.2d 387, 390 (La. 1954); City of Rochester v. Crittenden Park Riding Academy, 238 N.Y.S. 215, 215 (N.Y. | 1 | 1 |
City of New Orleans v. Leeco, Inc.green1 sentence2002See Town of Ogunquit v. McGarva, 570 A.2d 320, 321 (Me. 1990); City of New Orleans v. Leeco, Inc., 76 So.2d 387, 390 (La. 1954); City of Rochester v. Crittenden Park Riding Academy, 238 N.Y.S. 215, 215 (N.Y. | 1 | 1 |
Custer v. Pan American Life Insurance Companygreen1 sentence1997Co., 12 F.3d 410, 419-20 (4th Cir. 1993); DeBruyne v. Equitable Life Assur. *29 Soc’y of the United States, 920 F.2d 457 , 467-70 (7th Cir. 1990) (misrepresentation claim under New York insurance law is not within the scope of the savings clause); Ramirez v. Inter-Continental Hotels, 890 F.2d 760, 763-64 (5th Cir. 1989) (same for Texas law prohibiting unfair competition or practices in the insurance business). | 1 | 1 |
Peter Ramirez, Jr., Cross-Appellee v. Inter-Continental Hotels, D/B/A St. Anthony Hotel, and the Travelers Insurance Company, Cross-Appellantsgreen1 sentence1997Co., 12 F.3d 410, 419-20 (4th Cir. 1993); DeBruyne v. Equitable Life Assur. *29 Soc’y of the United States, 920 F.2d 457 , 467-70 (7th Cir. 1990) (misrepresentation claim under New York insurance law is not within the scope of the savings clause); Ramirez v. Inter-Continental Hotels, 890 F.2d 760, 763-64 (5th Cir. 1989) (same for Texas law prohibiting unfair competition or practices in the insurance business). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Sharon Floss v. Ryan's Family Steak Houses, Inc., Kyle Daniels v. Ryan's Family Steak Houses, Inc.
green
1 sentence2024Steak Houses, Inc., 211 F.3d 306 , 315–16 (6th Cir. 2000) (holding an arbitration agreement illusory because it allowed one party “to alter the applicable rules and procedures without any obligation to notify, much less receive consent from [the other party]”); Penn v. Ryan’s Fam. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
KB Aircraft Acquisition, LLC v. Berry
green
1 sentence2019The North Carolina Court of Appeals has interpreted “transfer” in section 39-23.9 to refer to “the date that the transfer actually occurred, and not the date that the fraudulent nature of the transfer became apparent.” KB Aircraft Acquisition, LLC, 249 N.C. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
American Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Central Office Telephone, Inc.
green
2 sentences2005The United States Supreme *564 Court has held that this savings clause "preserves only those rights that are not inconsistent with the statutory filed-tariff requirements." AT&T v. Central Office Telephone, 524 U.S. at 227 , 141 L.Ed.2d at 236 . 2005The United States Supreme *564 Court has held that this savings clause "preserves only those rights that are not inconsistent with the statutory filed-tariff requirements." AT&T v. Central Office Telephone, 524 U.S. at 227 , 141 L.Ed.2d at 236 . | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Debruyne v. Equitable Life Assurance Society
green
1 sentence1997Co., 12 F.3d 410, 419-20 (4th Cir. 1993); DeBruyne v. Equitable Life Assur. *29 Soc’y of the United States, 920 F.2d 457 , 467-70 (7th Cir. 1990) (misrepresentation claim under New York insurance law is not within the scope of the savings clause); Ramirez v. Inter-Continental Hotels, 890 F.2d 760, 763-64 (5th Cir. 1989) (same for Texas law prohibiting unfair competition or practices in the insurance business). | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Bockweg v. Anderson
green
2 sentences1991Obviously, where a case was initiated by plaintiffs in a federal court, a dismissal without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1) is not a dismissal "under this subsection" of North Carolina Rule 41(a)(1); only a voluntary dismissal taken pursuant to North Carolina Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1) can be "under this subsection." Contrary to the majority's statement that "the words `under this subsection' do not limit application of the savings provision," Bockweg v. Anderson, 328 N.C. 436 , ___, 402 S.E.2d 627, 635 , the rule does limit the class of litigants who may benefit 1991Obviously, where a case was initiated by plaintiffs in a federal court, a dismissal without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1) is not a dismissal "under this subsection" of North Carolina Rule 41(a)(1); only a voluntary dismissal taken pursuant to North Carolina Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1) can be "under this subsection." Contrary to the majority's statement that "the words `under this subsection' do not limit application of the savings provision," Bockweg v. Anderson, 328 N.C. 436 , ___, 402 S.E.2d 627, 635 , the rule does limit the class of litigants who may benefit | 1 | 1991–1991 |
State v. Harvey
green
2 sentences1975State v. Currie, 284 N.C. 562 , 202 S.E. 2d 153 (1974) ; State v. Cameron, 284 N.C. 165 , 200 S.E. 2d 186 (1973), cert. denied 418 U.S. 905 , 41 L.Ed. 2d 1153 , 94 S.Ct. 3195 (1974) ; State v. Harvey, 281 N.C. 1 , 187 S.E. 2d 706 (1972) ; State v. Pardon, 272 N.C. 72 , 157 S.E. 2d 698 (1967). 1975State v. Currie, 284 N.C. 562 , 202 S.E. 2d 153 (1974) ; State v. Cameron, 284 N.C. 165 , 200 S.E. 2d 186 (1973), cert. denied 418 U.S. 905 , 41 L.Ed. 2d 1153 , 94 S.Ct. 3195 (1974) ; State v. Harvey, 281 N.C. 1 , 187 S.E. 2d 706 (1972) ; State v. Pardon, 272 N.C. 72 , 157 S.E. 2d 698 (1967). | 1 | 1975–1975 |
State v. Pardon
green
2 sentences1975State v. Currie, 284 N.C. 562 , 202 S.E. 2d 153 (1974) ; State v. Cameron, 284 N.C. 165 , 200 S.E. 2d 186 (1973), cert. denied 418 U.S. 905 , 41 L.Ed. 2d 1153 , 94 S.Ct. 3195 (1974) ; State v. Harvey, 281 N.C. 1 , 187 S.E. 2d 706 (1972) ; State v. Pardon, 272 N.C. 72 , 157 S.E. 2d 698 (1967). 1975State v. Currie, 284 N.C. 562 , 202 S.E. 2d 153 (1974) ; State v. Cameron, 284 N.C. 165 , 200 S.E. 2d 186 (1973), cert. denied 418 U.S. 905 , 41 L.Ed. 2d 1153 , 94 S.Ct. 3195 (1974) ; State v. Harvey, 281 N.C. 1 , 187 S.E. 2d 706 (1972) ; State v. Pardon, 272 N.C. 72 , 157 S.E. 2d 698 (1967). | 1 | 1975–1975 |
State v. Currie
green
2 sentences1975State v. Currie, 284 N.C. 562 , 202 S.E. 2d 153 (1974) ; State v. Cameron, 284 N.C. 165 , 200 S.E. 2d 186 (1973), cert. denied 418 U.S. 905 , 41 L.Ed. 2d 1153 , 94 S.Ct. 3195 (1974) ; State v. Harvey, 281 N.C. 1 , 187 S.E. 2d 706 (1972) ; State v. Pardon, 272 N.C. 72 , 157 S.E. 2d 698 (1967). 1975State v. Currie, 284 N.C. 562 , 202 S.E. 2d 153 (1974) ; State v. Cameron, 284 N.C. 165 , 200 S.E. 2d 186 (1973), cert. denied 418 U.S. 905 , 41 L.Ed. 2d 1153 , 94 S.Ct. 3195 (1974) ; State v. Harvey, 281 N.C. 1 , 187 S.E. 2d 706 (1972) ; State v. Pardon, 272 N.C. 72 , 157 S.E. 2d 698 (1967). | 1 | 1975–1975 |
State v. Cameron
green
2 sentences1975State v. Currie, 284 N.C. 562 , 202 S.E. 2d 153 (1974) ; State v. Cameron, 284 N.C. 165 , 200 S.E. 2d 186 (1973), cert. denied 418 U.S. 905 , 41 L.Ed. 2d 1153 , 94 S.Ct. 3195 (1974) ; State v. Harvey, 281 N.C. 1 , 187 S.E. 2d 706 (1972) ; State v. Pardon, 272 N.C. 72 , 157 S.E. 2d 698 (1967). 1975State v. Currie, 284 N.C. 562 , 202 S.E. 2d 153 (1974) ; State v. Cameron, 284 N.C. 165 , 200 S.E. 2d 186 (1973), cert. denied 418 U.S. 905 , 41 L.Ed. 2d 1153 , 94 S.Ct. 3195 (1974) ; State v. Harvey, 281 N.C. 1 , 187 S.E. 2d 706 (1972) ; State v. Pardon, 272 N.C. 72 , 157 S.E. 2d 698 (1967). | 1 | 1975–1975 |
California Newspapers, Inc. v. San Francisco Typographical Union No. 21
green
1 sentence1975State v. Currie, 284 N.C. 562 , 202 S.E. 2d 153 (1974) ; State v. Cameron, 284 N.C. 165 , 200 S.E. 2d 186 (1973), cert. denied 418 U.S. 905 , 41 L.Ed. 2d 1153 , 94 S.Ct. 3195 (1974) ; State v. Harvey, 281 N.C. 1 , 187 S.E. 2d 706 (1972) ; State v. Pardon, 272 N.C. 72 , 157 S.E. 2d 698 (1967). | 1 | 1975–1975 |
Arias v. United States
green
1 sentence1975State v. Currie, 284 N.C. 562 , 202 S.E. 2d 153 (1974) ; State v. Cameron, 284 N.C. 165 , 200 S.E. 2d 186 (1973), cert. denied 418 U.S. 905 , 41 L.Ed. 2d 1153 , 94 S.Ct. 3195 (1974) ; State v. Harvey, 281 N.C. 1 , 187 S.E. 2d 706 (1972) ; State v. Pardon, 272 N.C. 72 , 157 S.E. 2d 698 (1967). | 1 | 1975–1975 |
Toporoff v. Justices of Supreme Court of New York
green
1 sentence1975State v. Currie, 284 N.C. 562 , 202 S.E. 2d 153 (1974) ; State v. Cameron, 284 N.C. 165 , 200 S.E. 2d 186 (1973), cert. denied 418 U.S. 905 , 41 L.Ed. 2d 1153 , 94 S.Ct. 3195 (1974) ; State v. Harvey, 281 N.C. 1 , 187 S.E. 2d 706 (1972) ; State v. Pardon, 272 N.C. 72 , 157 S.E. 2d 698 (1967). | 1 | 1975–1975 |
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.