7 North Carolina opinions name it 3 courts 1990–2025 4 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 |
|---|---|---|
Clark v. Craven Regional Medical Authoritygreen2 sentences2018Trussway’s Motion to Dismiss fares no better under the broader application of the prior action pending doctrine that Trussway advances, which focuses solely on whether the two actions before the Court “present a substantial identity as to parties, subject matter, issues involved, and relief demanded[.]” Clark, 326 N.C. at 21 , 387 S.E.2d at 172 . 2018Trussway’s Motion to Dismiss fares no better under the broader application of the prior action pending doctrine that Trussway advances, which focuses solely on whether the two actions before the Court “present a substantial identity as to parties, subject matter, issues involved, and relief demanded[.]” Clark, 326 N.C. at 21 , 387 S.E.2d at 172 . | 2 | 5 |
Brooks v. Brooksgreen2 sentences2025Brooks v. Brooks, 107 N.C. 2018Brooks v. Brooks , 107 N.C. | 2 | 3 |
LMSP, LLC v. Town of Boonegreen2 sentences2025“Invocation of the prior action pending doctrine is a form of ‘plea in abatement.’” LMSP, LLC, 260 N.C. 2025App. at 390 , 818 S.E.2d at 316 (citation modified). | 1 | 1 |
City of Chicago v. International College of Surgeonsgreen2 sentences2018See City of Chicago v. Int'l Coll. of Surgeons , 522 U.S. 156 , 165, 118 S.Ct. 523 , 139 L.Ed. 2d 525 , 535 (1997) ("[I]n any civil action of which the district courts have original jurisdiction, the district courts shall have supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that are so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III[.]"). *393 Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's order granting the Town's motion to dismiss the present action on the grounds that it is barred by the prior action pending d 2018See City of Chicago v. Int'l Coll. of Surgeons , 522 U.S. 156 , 165, 118 S.Ct. 523 , 139 L.Ed. 2d 525 , 535 (1997) ("[I]n any civil action of which the district courts have original jurisdiction, the district courts shall have supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that are so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III[.]"). *393 Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's order granting the Town's motion to dismiss the present action on the grounds that it is barred by the prior action pending d | 1 | 1 |
Shore v. Browngreen2 sentences1990In this case,’the trial judge granted the stay based upon the doctrine of prior action pending: “. . . the pending of a prior action between the same parties for the same cause of action in a court of competent jurisdiction works an abatement of a subsequent ac tion either in the same court or another court of the same state having jurisdiction.” Shore v. Brown, 324 N.C. 427, 429 , 378 S.E.2d 778, 779 (1989). 1990In this case,’the trial judge granted the stay based upon the doctrine of prior action pending: “. . . the pending of a prior action between the same parties for the same cause of action in a court of competent jurisdiction works an abatement of a subsequent ac tion either in the same court or another court of the same state having jurisdiction.” Shore v. Brown, 324 N.C. 427, 429 , 378 S.E.2d 778, 779 (1989). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
State Ex Rel. Onslow County v. Mercer
green
2 sentences2018Specifically, the prior action pending doctrine applies whenever "a prior action is pending between the same parties, affecting the same subject matter in a court within the state or the federal court having like jurisdiction[.]" Onslow County , 128 N.C. 2018In determining whether abatement of the subsequent action under the prior action pending doctrine is required, "the ordinary test is this: 'Do the two actions present a substantial identity as to parties, subject matter, issues involved and relief demanded?' " Id. at 375 , 496 S.E.2d at 588 (quoting Clark v. Craven Reg'l Med. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Burgin v. Owen
green
1 sentence2018We disagree. *316 Motion to Dismiss Standard of Review It is axiomatic that "[o]n appeal of a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, this Court conducts a de novo review of the pleadings to determine their legal sufficiency and to determine whether the trial court's ruling on the motion to dismiss was correct." Burgin v. Owen , 181 N.C. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
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.