stare decisis doctrine in North Carolina

55 North Carolina opinions name it 3 courts 1893–2024 20 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 (26)

Case	Followed	Cited
Bacon v. Leegreen nc · 2001 · cited in 9 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2015–2022 2 sentences 2022Allen is controlling precedent, and this Court is “bound by prior precedent [under] the doctrine of stare decisis.” In re O.E.M., 379 N.C. 27 , 2021-NCSC-120, ¶ 12 (quoting Bacon v. Lee, 353 N.C. 696, 712 (2001)). 2022Allen is controlling precedent, and this Court is “bound by prior precedent [under] the doctrine of stare decisis.” In re O.E.M., 379 N.C. 27 , 2021-NCSC-120, ¶ 12 (quoting Bacon v. Lee, 353 N.C. 696, 712 (2001)).	8	9
Wiles v. Welparnel Const. Co., Inc.green nc · 1978 · cited in 5 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 1997–2021 2 sentences 2021When tasked with examining a decision of the Court of Appeals interpreting a North Carolina statutory provision which was decided a substantial period of time in the past and which is not in tension with any decision of this Court interpreting the same provision, I would accord that decision something akin to the respect we accord a prior precedent of this Court under the doctrine of stare decisis. ¶ 32 Under the doctrine of stare decisis, we adhere to prior decisions of this Court “both out of respect for the opinions of our predecessors and because it promotes stability in the law and unifor 2021When tasked with examining a decision of the Court of Appeals interpreting a North Carolina statutory provision which was decided a substantial period of time in the past and which is not in tension with any decision of this Court interpreting the same provision, I would accord that decision something akin to the respect we accord a prior precedent of this Court under the doctrine of stare decisis. ¶ 32 Under the doctrine of stare decisis, we adhere to prior decisions of this Court “both out of respect for the opinions of our predecessors and because it promotes stability in the law and unifor	5	5
Hill v. Railroadgreen ohioctapp · 1906 · cited in 5 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 1983–2021 2 sentences 2021Co., 143 N.C. 539, 574 (1906) (stating that “[w]hat our present opinion may be, as to the merits of the decision in [a certain] case, is now of no consequence whatsoever” given that, “[i]n construing statutes, and the Constitution, the rule is almost universal to adhere to the doctrine of stare decisis”). 2021Co., 143 N.C. 539, 574 (1906) (stating that “[w]hat our present opinion may be, as to the merits of the decision in [a certain] case, is now of no consequence whatsoever” given that, “[i]n construing statutes, and the Constitution, the rule is almost universal to adhere to the doctrine of stare decisis”).	5	5
Payne v. Tennesseegreen scotus · 1991 · cited in 6 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2001–2021 2 sentences 2021In furtherance of this objective, courts generally consider themselves bound by prior precedent, i.e., the doctrine of stare decisis.” (citing Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808, 827 , 115 L.Ed.2d 720 , 736–37 (1991)). ¶ 20 The trial court’s unchallenged findings of fact demonstrate that respondents had the ability to pay a reasonable portion of David’s cost of care but failed to pay any amount to DSS or the foster parents toward cost of care. 2021In furtherance of this objective, courts generally consider themselves bound by prior precedent, i.e., the doctrine of stare decisis.” (citing Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808, 827 , 115 L.Ed.2d 720 , 736–37 (1991)). ¶ 20 The trial court’s unchallenged findings of fact demonstrate that respondents had the ability to pay a reasonable portion of David’s cost of care but failed to pay any amount to DSS or the foster parents toward cost of care.	4	6
State v. . Ballancegreen nc · 1949 · cited in 5 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 1967–2023 2 sentences 2023The “doctrine of stare decisis . . . proclaims, in effect, that where a principle of law has become settled by a series of decisions, it is binding on the courts and should be followed in similar cases.” State v. Ballance, 229 N.C. 764, 767 , 51 S.E.2d 731, 733 (1949) (internal citations omitted). 2023The “doctrine of stare decisis . . . proclaims, in effect, that where a principle of law has become settled by a series of decisions, it is binding on the courts and should be followed in similar cases.” State v. Ballance, 229 N.C. 764, 767 , 51 S.E.2d 731, 733 (1949) (internal citations omitted).	3	5
McGill v. Town of Lumbertongreen nc · 1940 · cited in 4 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 1985–2021 2 sentences 2021McGill v. Town of Lumberton, 218 N.C. 586, 591 (1940) (cleaned up); see also Bacon v. Lee, 353 N.C. 696, 712 (2001) (stating that “[a] primary goal of adjudicatory proceedings is the uniform application of law” and that, “[i]n furtherance of this objective, courts generally consider themselves bound by prior precedent, i.e., the doctrine of stare decisis” (citing Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808, 827 (1991) (stating that “[s]tare decisis is the preferred course because it promotes the evenhanded, predictable, and consistent development of legal principles, fosters reliance on judicial decision 2021McGill v. Town of Lumberton, 218 N.C. 586, 591 (1940) (cleaned up); see also Bacon v. Lee, 353 N.C. 696, 712 (2001) (stating that “[a] primary goal of adjudicatory proceedings is the uniform application of law” and that, “[i]n furtherance of this objective, courts generally consider themselves bound by prior precedent, i.e., the doctrine of stare decisis” (citing Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808, 827 (1991) (stating that “[s]tare decisis is the preferred course because it promotes the evenhanded, predictable, and consistent development of legal principles, fosters reliance on judicial decision	2	4
State v. Camachogreen nc · 1994 · cited in 3 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2005–2006 2 sentences 2006See State v. Camacho, 337 N.C. 224, 235 , 446 S.E.2d 8, 14 (1994) (Mitchell, J. (later C.J.), concurring). 2006See State v. Camacho, 337 N.C. 224, 235 , 446 S.E.2d 8, 14 (1994) (Mitchell, J. (later C.J.), concurring).	2	3
State Ex Rel. Utilities Commission v. Carolina Utility Customers Ass'n Inc.green · 1998 · cited in 2 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2022–2022 2 sentences 2022Customers Ass’n, 348 N.C. 452, 472 (1998) (stating that “[a] final order of the [Commission] in a general rate case is not within the doctrine of stare decisis”). ¶ 28 According to the Public Staff, the Commission made sufficient findings of fact to “explain[ ] why a divergence from the usual ratemaking standards would be appropriate and why the approach that the Commission ha[d] adopted would be just and reasonable to both utilities and their customers” as required by this Court’s decision in Stein, 375 N.C. at 926. 2022Customers Ass’n, that, while “prior decisions of this Court regarding general questions of law” relevant to the ratemaking process were entitled to stare decisis effect, “the final order of the Commission in a general rate case is not within the doctrine of stare decisis[.]” 348 N.C. 452, 472 (1998) (cleaned up) (quoting State ex rel.	2	2
The Commonwealth v. COXC, ESQ.green scotus · 1800 · cited in 2 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2018–2018 2 sentences 2018The doctrine of stare decisis "is a maxim to be held forever sacred." Commonwealth v. Coxe , 4 U.S. 170 , 1 L.Ed. 786 , 4 Dall. 170 , 192 (Pa. 1800). 2018The doctrine of stare decisis "is a maxim to be held forever sacred." Commonwealth v. Coxe , 4 U.S. 170 , 1 L.Ed. 786 , 4 Dall. 170 , 192 (Pa. 1800).	2	2
Patterson v. . McCormickgreen nc · 1919 · cited in 3 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 1949–2024 2 sentences 2024See also Patterson v. McCormick, 177 N.C. 448 (1919) (“The rule of stare decisis cannot be applied to perpetuate error.”). 1949Spitzer v. Comrs., supra; Patterson v. McCormick, 177 N. C. 448 , 99 S. E. 401 .	1	3
Bulova Watch Co. v. Brand Distributors of North Wilkesboro, Inc.green nc · 1974 · cited in 2 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 1978–2010 2 sentences 2010Ed. 2d 720, 736-37 (1991) (“Stare decisis is the preferred course because it promotes the evenhanded, predictable, and consistent development of legal principles, fosters reliance on judicial decisions, and contributes to the actual and perceived integrity of the judicial process.”), and Bulova Watch Co. v. Brand Distribs. of N. Wilkesboro, Inc., 285 N.C. 467, 472 , 206 S.E.2d 141, 145 (1974) (observing that stare decisis “promotes stability in the law and uniformity in its application”))), cert. denied, 533 U.S. 975 , 150 L. 2010Ed. 2d 720, 736-37 (1991) (“Stare decisis is the preferred course because it promotes the evenhanded, predictable, and consistent development of legal principles, fosters reliance on judicial decisions, and contributes to the actual and perceived integrity of the judicial process.”), and Bulova Watch Co. v. Brand Distribs. of N. Wilkesboro, Inc., 285 N.C. 467, 472 , 206 S.E.2d 141, 145 (1974) (observing that stare decisis “promotes stability in the law and uniformity in its application”))), cert. denied, 533 U.S. 975 , 150 L.	1	2
Rabon v. Rowan Memorial Hospital Incorporatedgreen nc · 1967 · cited in 2 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 1985–1997 2 sentences 1997Nothing in our above-cited cases ... indicates that this long-standing principle has proven inscrutable or unworkable." State v. White, 322 N.C. 506, 518 , 369 S.E.2d 813, 819 (1988). "[N]othing is settled [under the doctrine of stare decisis ] until it is settled right." Rabon v. Rowan Memorial Hospital, Inc., 269 N.C. 1, 20 , 152 S.E.2d 485, 498 (1967). 1997Nothing in our above-cited cases ... indicates that this long-standing principle has proven inscrutable or unworkable." State v. White, 322 N.C. 506, 518 , 369 S.E.2d 813, 819 (1988). "[N]othing is settled [under the doctrine of stare decisis ] until it is settled right." Rabon v. Rowan Memorial Hospital, Inc., 269 N.C. 1, 20 , 152 S.E.2d 485, 498 (1967).	1	2
Dunn v. Pategreen ncctapp · 1992 · cited in 2 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 1994–1995 2 sentences 1995App. 56, 60 , 415 S.E.2d 102, 104 (1992), overruled on other grounds, 334 N.C. 115 , 431 S.E.2d 178 (1993) (The doctrine of stare decisis provides that the “ ‘determination of a point of law by a court will generally be followed by a court of the same or lower rank if a subsequent case presents the same legal problem, although different parties are involved in the subsequent case.’ ” (citation omitted)). 1994Dunn v. Pate, 106 N.C.	1	2
Musi v. Town of Shallottegreen · 2009 · cited in 1 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2013–2013 1 sentence 2013App. 379, 383 , 684 S.E.2d 892, 896 (2009) (“Under [the doctrine of stare decisis], [t]he determination of a point of law by a court will generally be followed by a court of the same or lower rank[.]”) (citation and quotation omitted). .	1	1
State v. Whitegreen nc · 1988 · cited in 1 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 1997–1997	1	1
State v. . Smithgreen nc · 1942 · cited in 1 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 1997–1997	1	1
State v. . Goochgreen nc · 1886 · cited in 1 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 1997–1997 1 sentence 1997See, e.g., State v. Butler, 269 N.C. 733, 736-37 , 153 S.E.2d 477, 481 (1967); State v. Kelly, 243 N.C. 177, 181 , 90 S.E.2d 241, 244 (1955); State v. Smith, 221 N.C. 400, 405 , 20 S.E.2d 360, 364-65 (1942); State v. Davis, 203 N.C. 13, 28 , 164 S.E. 737 , 745, cert. denied, 287 U.S. 649 , 53 S.Ct. 95 , 77 L.Ed. 561 (1932); State v. Oxendine, 187 N.C. 658, 661-62 , 122 S.E. 568, 570 (1924); State v. Knotts, 168 N.C. 173, 180-81 , 83 S.E. 972, 979 (1914); State v. Finley, 118 N.C. 1162, 1171 , 24 S.E. 495, 499 (1896); State v. Gooch, 94 N.C. 987, 1014 (1886).	1	1
State v. . Oxendinegreen nc · 1924 · cited in 1 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 1997–1997 2 sentences 1997See, e.g., State v. Butler, 269 N.C. 733, 736-37 , 153 S.E.2d 477, 481 (1967); State v. Kelly, 243 N.C. 177, 181 , 90 S.E.2d 241, 244 (1955); State v. Smith, 221 N.C. 400, 405 , 20 S.E.2d 360, 364-65 (1942); State v. Davis, 203 N.C. 13, 28 , 164 S.E. 737 , 745, cert. denied, 287 U.S. 649 , 53 S.Ct. 95 , 77 L.Ed. 561 (1932); State v. Oxendine, 187 N.C. 658, 661-62 , 122 S.E. 568, 570 (1924); State v. Knotts, 168 N.C. 173, 180-81 , 83 S.E. 972, 979 (1914); State v. Finley, 118 N.C. 1162, 1171 , 24 S.E. 495, 499 (1896); State v. Gooch, 94 N.C. 987, 1014 (1886). 1997See, e.g., State v. Butler, 269 N.C. 733, 736-37 , 153 S.E.2d 477, 481 (1967); State v. Kelly, 243 N.C. 177, 181 , 90 S.E.2d 241, 244 (1955); State v. Smith, 221 N.C. 400, 405 , 20 S.E.2d 360, 364-65 (1942); State v. Davis, 203 N.C. 13, 28 , 164 S.E. 737 , 745, cert. denied, 287 U.S. 649 , 53 S.Ct. 95 , 77 L.Ed. 561 (1932); State v. Oxendine, 187 N.C. 658, 661-62 , 122 S.E. 568, 570 (1924); State v. Knotts, 168 N.C. 173, 180-81 , 83 S.E. 972, 979 (1914); State v. Finley, 118 N.C. 1162, 1171 , 24 S.E. 495, 499 (1896); State v. Gooch, 94 N.C. 987, 1014 (1886).	1	1
State v. . Knottsgreen · 1914 · cited in 1 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 1997–1997 2 sentences 1997See, e.g., State v. Butler, 269 N.C. 733, 736-37 , 153 S.E.2d 477, 481 (1967); State v. Kelly, 243 N.C. 177, 181 , 90 S.E.2d 241, 244 (1955); State v. Smith, 221 N.C. 400, 405 , 20 S.E.2d 360, 364-65 (1942); State v. Davis, 203 N.C. 13, 28 , 164 S.E. 737 , 745, cert. denied, 287 U.S. 649 , 53 S.Ct. 95 , 77 L.Ed. 561 (1932); State v. Oxendine, 187 N.C. 658, 661-62 , 122 S.E. 568, 570 (1924); State v. Knotts, 168 N.C. 173, 180-81 , 83 S.E. 972, 979 (1914); State v. Finley, 118 N.C. 1162, 1171 , 24 S.E. 495, 499 (1896); State v. Gooch, 94 N.C. 987, 1014 (1886). 1997See, e.g., State v. Butler, 269 N.C. 733, 736-37 , 153 S.E.2d 477, 481 (1967); State v. Kelly, 243 N.C. 177, 181 , 90 S.E.2d 241, 244 (1955); State v. Smith, 221 N.C. 400, 405 , 20 S.E.2d 360, 364-65 (1942); State v. Davis, 203 N.C. 13, 28 , 164 S.E. 737 , 745, cert. denied, 287 U.S. 649 , 53 S.Ct. 95 , 77 L.Ed. 561 (1932); State v. Oxendine, 187 N.C. 658, 661-62 , 122 S.E. 568, 570 (1924); State v. Knotts, 168 N.C. 173, 180-81 , 83 S.E. 972, 979 (1914); State v. Finley, 118 N.C. 1162, 1171 , 24 S.E. 495, 499 (1896); State v. Gooch, 94 N.C. 987, 1014 (1886).	1	1
State v. . Finleygreen nc · 1896 · cited in 1 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 1997–1997 2 sentences 1997See, e.g., State v. Butler, 269 N.C. 733, 736-37 , 153 S.E.2d 477, 481 (1967); State v. Kelly, 243 N.C. 177, 181 , 90 S.E.2d 241, 244 (1955); State v. Smith, 221 N.C. 400, 405 , 20 S.E.2d 360, 364-65 (1942); State v. Davis, 203 N.C. 13, 28 , 164 S.E. 737 , 745, cert. denied, 287 U.S. 649 , 53 S.Ct. 95 , 77 L.Ed. 561 (1932); State v. Oxendine, 187 N.C. 658, 661-62 , 122 S.E. 568, 570 (1924); State v. Knotts, 168 N.C. 173, 180-81 , 83 S.E. 972, 979 (1914); State v. Finley, 118 N.C. 1162, 1171 , 24 S.E. 495, 499 (1896); State v. Gooch, 94 N.C. 987, 1014 (1886). 1997See, e.g., State v. Butler, 269 N.C. 733, 736-37 , 153 S.E.2d 477, 481 (1967); State v. Kelly, 243 N.C. 177, 181 , 90 S.E.2d 241, 244 (1955); State v. Smith, 221 N.C. 400, 405 , 20 S.E.2d 360, 364-65 (1942); State v. Davis, 203 N.C. 13, 28 , 164 S.E. 737 , 745, cert. denied, 287 U.S. 649 , 53 S.Ct. 95 , 77 L.Ed. 561 (1932); State v. Oxendine, 187 N.C. 658, 661-62 , 122 S.E. 568, 570 (1924); State v. Knotts, 168 N.C. 173, 180-81 , 83 S.E. 972, 979 (1914); State v. Finley, 118 N.C. 1162, 1171 , 24 S.E. 495, 499 (1896); State v. Gooch, 94 N.C. 987, 1014 (1886).	1	1
State v. . Simmonsgreen nc · 1858 · cited in 1 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 1997–1997 2 sentences 1997We ruled similarly in State v. Simmons, 51 N.C. 21, 24-25 (1858), finding it "a well established principle[ ] that where two agree to do an unlawful act, each is responsible for the act of the other, provided it be done in pursuance of the original understanding, or in furtherance of the common purpose." (Emphasis added.) Following the doctrine of stare decisis, we continued to follow the "well established principle" of Haney and Simmons in all of the years prior to the Reese decision. 1997We ruled similarly in State v. Simmons, 51 N.C. 21, 24-25 (1858), finding it “a well established principlef] that where two agree to do an unlawful act, each is responsible for the act of the other, provided it be done in pursuance of the original understanding, or in furtherance of the common purpose.” (Emphasis added.) Following the doctrine of stare decisis, we continued to follow the “well established principle” of Haney and Simmons in all of the years prior to the Reese decision.	1	1
State v. Kellygreen nc · 1955 · cited in 1 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 1997–1997 2 sentences 1997See, e.g., State v. Butler, 269 N.C. 733, 736-37 , 153 S.E.2d 477, 481 (1967); State v. Kelly, 243 N.C. 177, 181 , 90 S.E.2d 241, 244 (1955); State v. Smith, 221 N.C. 400, 405 , 20 S.E.2d 360, 364-65 (1942); State v. Davis, 203 N.C. 13, 28 , 164 S.E. 737 , 745, cert. denied, 287 U.S. 649 , 53 S.Ct. 95 , 77 L.Ed. 561 (1932); State v. Oxendine, 187 N.C. 658, 661-62 , 122 S.E. 568, 570 (1924); State v. Knotts, 168 N.C. 173, 180-81 , 83 S.E. 972, 979 (1914); State v. Finley, 118 N.C. 1162, 1171 , 24 S.E. 495, 499 (1896); State v. Gooch, 94 N.C. 987, 1014 (1886). 1997See, e.g., State v. Butler, 269 N.C. 733, 736-37 , 153 S.E.2d 477, 481 (1967); State v. Kelly, 243 N.C. 177, 181 , 90 S.E.2d 241, 244 (1955); State v. Smith, 221 N.C. 400, 405 , 20 S.E.2d 360, 364-65 (1942); State v. Davis, 203 N.C. 13, 28 , 164 S.E. 737 , 745, cert. denied, 287 U.S. 649 , 53 S.Ct. 95 , 77 L.Ed. 561 (1932); State v. Oxendine, 187 N.C. 658, 661-62 , 122 S.E. 568, 570 (1924); State v. Knotts, 168 N.C. 173, 180-81 , 83 S.E. 972, 979 (1914); State v. Finley, 118 N.C. 1162, 1171 , 24 S.E. 495, 499 (1896); State v. Gooch, 94 N.C. 987, 1014 (1886).	1	1
State v. Butlergreen nc · 1967 · cited in 1 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 1997–1997	1	1
State v. Sandlingreen nc · 1983 · cited in 1 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 1986–1986	1	1
State v. Sandersongreen ncctapp · 1983 · cited in 1 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 1986–1986	1	1
Shields v. NATIONWIDE MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANYgreen nc · 1983 · cited in 1 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 1986–1986	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in North Carolina. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (26)

Case	Cited	Years
Bacon v. Lee green scotus · 2001 2 sentences 2021In furtherance of this objective, courts generally consider themselves bound by prior precedent, i.e., the doctrine of stare decisis.” (citations omitted)), cert. denied, 533 U.S. 975 , 122 S. Ct. 22 , 150 L. 2021In furtherance of this objective, courts generally consider themselves bound by prior precedent, i.e., the doctrine of stare decisis.” (citations omitted)), cert. denied, 533 U.S. 975 , 122 S. Ct. 22 , 150 L.	4	2010–2021
Young v. United States green scotus · 2001 2 sentences 2021In furtherance of this objective, courts generally consider themselves bound by prior precedent, i.e., the doctrine of stare decisis.” (citations omitted)), cert. denied, 533 U.S. 975 , 122 S. Ct. 22 , 150 L. 2021In furtherance of this objective, courts generally consider themselves bound by prior precedent, i.e., the doctrine of stare decisis.” (citations omitted)), cert. denied, 533 U.S. 975 , 122 S. Ct. 22 , 150 L.	4	2010–2021
Spitzer v. . Comrs. green nc · 1924 2 sentences 1985As Stacy, J. (later C.J.), said in Spitzer v. Comrs., 188 N.C. 30, 32 , 123 S.E. 636 , 638: "There is no virtue in sinning against light or in persisting in palpable error, for nothing is settled until it is settled right." Almost a quarter of a century later, Ervin, J., said: "The doctrine of stare decisis will not be applied in any event to preserve and perpetuate error and grievous wrong." State v. Ballance, 229 N.C. 764 , 767, 51 S.E.2d 731 . 269 N.C. at 20-21 , 152 S.E.2d at 498 . 1985As Stacy, J. (later C.J.), said in Spitzer v. Comrs., 188 N.C. 30, 32 , 123 S.E. 636 , 638: "There is no virtue in sinning against light or in persisting in palpable error, for nothing is settled until it is settled right." Almost a quarter of a century later, Ervin, J., said: "The doctrine of stare decisis will not be applied in any event to preserve and perpetuate error and grievous wrong." State v. Ballance, 229 N.C. 764 , 767, 51 S.E.2d 731 . 269 N.C. at 20-21 , 152 S.E.2d at 498 .	3	1959–1985
State v. Mobley green nc · 1954 2 sentences 2022AUTH. 2022-NCSC-95 Barringer, J., dissenting statute covering the subject matter has been overlooked, the doctrine of stare decisis does not apply.” Id. (emphasis omitted). 2022AUTH. 2022-NCSC-95 Barringer, J., dissenting statute covering the subject matter has been overlooked, the doctrine of stare decisis does not apply.” Id. (emphasis omitted).	2	2022–2022
Pearson v. Callahan green scotus · 2009 2 sentences 2021Although this Court has not articulated factors to consider when examining the continued vitality of our precedents—perhaps because this Court has for so long respected the doctrine of stare decisis—the United States Supreme Court considers “the quality of [ ] reasoning [of the precedent being challenged], the workability of the rule it established, its consistency with other related decisions, developments since the decision was handed down, and reliance on the decision.” Id. at 2478–79. ¶ 79 In light of these factors, what is particularly troubling about the majority’s unwillingness to adher 2021Although this Court has not articulated factors to consider when examining the continued vitality of our precedents—perhaps because this Court has for so long respected the doctrine of stare decisis—the United States Supreme Court considers “the quality of [ ] reasoning [of the precedent being challenged], the workability of the rule it established, its consistency with other related decisions, developments since the decision was handed down, and reliance on the decision.” Id. at 2478–79. ¶ 79 In light of these factors, what is particularly troubling about the majority’s unwillingness to adher	2	2021–2021
Dunn v. Pate green nc · 1993 2 sentences 2008It necessarily follows that the trial court is bound by this same principle as well as the doctrine of stare decisis.” (quoting Cannon v. Miller, 313 N.C. 324 , 327 S.E.2d 888 (1985))), rev’d on other grounds, 334 N.C. 115 , 431 S.E.2d 178 (1993). {80} Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motions as to these claims. 2008It necessarily follows that the trial court is bound by this same principle as well as the doctrine of stare decisis.” (quoting Cannon v. Miller, 313 N.C. 324 , 327 S.E.2d 888 (1985))), rev’d on other grounds, 334 N.C. 115 , 431 S.E.2d 178 (1993). {80} Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motions as to these claims.	2	1995–2008
McClenahan v. . Cotten neutral · 1880 2 sentences 1921On tbe other band, tbe opinion in McClenahan v. Cotten, 83 N. C., 332 , satisfactorily states tbe reasons for sustaining tbe judgment appealed from in tbe instant case. 1921On the other hand, the opinion in McClenahan v. Cotten , 83 N.C. 332 , satisfactorily states the reasons for sustaining the judgment appealed from in the instant case.	2	1921–1921
Hatchett v. HITCHCOCK CORPORATION green nc · 1954 2 sentences 2013Id. 2013Id.	1	2013–2013
Cannon v. Miller green nc · 1985 2 sentences 2008It necessarily follows that the trial court is bound by this same principle as well as the doctrine of stare decisis.” (quoting Cannon v. Miller, 313 N.C. 324 , 327 S.E.2d 888 (1985))), rev’d on other grounds, 334 N.C. 115 , 431 S.E.2d 178 (1993). {80} Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motions as to these claims. 2008It necessarily follows that the trial court is bound by this same principle as well as the doctrine of stare decisis.” (quoting Cannon v. Miller, 313 N.C. 324 , 327 S.E.2d 888 (1985))), rev’d on other grounds, 334 N.C. 115 , 431 S.E.2d 178 (1993). {80} Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motions as to these claims.	1	2008–2008
State v. . Lea green nc · 1932 2 sentences 1997See, e.g., State v. Butler, 269 N.C. 733, 736-37 , 153 S.E.2d 477, 481 (1967); State v. Kelly, 243 N.C. 177, 181 , 90 S.E.2d 241, 244 (1955); State v. Smith, 221 N.C. 400, 405 , 20 S.E.2d 360, 364-65 (1942); State v. Davis, 203 N.C. 13, 28 , 164 S.E. 737 , 745, cert. denied, 287 U.S. 649 , 53 S.Ct. 95 , 77 L.Ed. 561 (1932); State v. Oxendine, 187 N.C. 658, 661-62 , 122 S.E. 568, 570 (1924); State v. Knotts, 168 N.C. 173, 180-81 , 83 S.E. 972, 979 (1914); State v. Finley, 118 N.C. 1162, 1171 , 24 S.E. 495, 499 (1896); State v. Gooch, 94 N.C. 987, 1014 (1886). 1997See, e.g., State v. Butler, 269 N.C. 733, 736-37 , 153 S.E.2d 477, 481 (1967); State v. Kelly, 243 N.C. 177, 181 , 90 S.E.2d 241, 244 (1955); State v. Smith, 221 N.C. 400, 405 , 20 S.E.2d 360, 364-65 (1942); State v. Davis, 203 N.C. 13, 28 , 164 S.E. 737 , 745, cert. denied, 287 U.S. 649 , 77 L.	1	1997–1997
State v. . Lea green nc · 1932	1	1997–1997
Mordecai v. Seignious green sc · 1898	1	1997–1997
Frischer & Co. v. Elting green scotus · 1932	1	1997–1997
Stanback v. Stanback green nc · 1979	1	1985–1985
Fadgen v. Lenkner green pa · 1976	1	1984–1984
Green v. Green. neutral nc · 1906	1	1983–1983
State Ex Rel. Utilities Commission v. Carolina Power & Light Co. green nc · 1959	1	1972–1972
Gill v. . Commissioners green nc · 1912	1	1959–1959
Williamson v. . Rabon green nc · 1919	1	1959–1959
McIntyre v. . Murphy neutral nc · 1919	1	1959–1959
Williamson v. Rabon green ca8 · 1919	1	1959–1959
Lowdermilk v. . Butler green · 1921	1	1924–1924
Mason v. A. E. Nelson Cotton Co. green · 1908	1	1919–1919
Hill v. . Brown green nc · 1907	1	1912–1912
First National Bank of Charlotte v. Lineberger, Rhyne & Co. green · 1880	1	1893–1893
Moore v. . Woodward green nc · 1880	1	1893–1893

Statutes the citing opinions construe

NC § N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1 (17) NC § N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-1001 (10) NC § N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-1109 (10) NC § N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-1110 (10) NC § N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-1111 (10) NC § N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1 (9) NC § N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7A-31 (7) NC § N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-1100 (6) NC § N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7A-27 (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.

Where else courts name it

CA 237 (1860–2026) IL 175 (1914–2026) MI 171 (1913–2025) TX 105 (1927–2025) NY 98 (1887–2026) PA 91 (1912–2026) UT 66 (1895–2025) AL 66 (1866–2026) WA 65 (1895–2025) FL 64 (1938–2026) WV 63 (1895–2026) GA 63 (1890–2024) MD 57 (1966–2025) NC 55 (1893–2024) OH 54 (1918–2026) NV 51 (1876–2024) WI 47 (1929–2024) KS 44 (1948–2025) VA 42 (1949–2025) MO 40 (1880–2025) TN 37 (1935–2025) OR 35 (1888–2024) CT 35 (1980–2025) KY 34 (1913–2025) IA 33 (1868–2025) WY 32 (1976–2025) MS 32 (1952–2025) HI 32 (1913–2025) MN 30 (1896–2025) IN 30 (1921–2024) AR 27 (1893–2021) CO 25 (1912–2026) AZ 24 (1916–2023) OK 20 (1912–2023) DE 19 (1961–2025) MT 19 (1872–2025) NJ 17 (1898–2022) NH 16 (2003–2025) ID 14 (1904–2024) LA 14 (1892–2014) AK 13 (1980–2023) NM 13 (1965–2025) VT 12 (1985–2026) ME 12 (1938–2025) MA 9 (1919–2016) NE 8 (1895–2026) RI 8 (2002–2018) SD 5 (1925–2025) SC 5 (1894–2022) DC 4 (1991–2013) VI 2 (2013–2024)

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