7 North Carolina opinions name it 3 courts 1950–2018 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Abernathy v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2005The Court held that in deciding whether the necessary relationship exists," `the chief factors justifying imposition of liability are 1) the ability to control the person and 2) knowledge of the person's propensity for violence.'" Id. at 346 , 439 S.E.2d at 774 (quoting Abernathy v. United States, 773 F.2d 184, 189 (8th Cir.1985)). 2005"In each example, `the chief factors justifying imposition of liability are 1) the ability to control the person and 2) knowledge of the person's propensity for violence.'" King, 113 N.C.App. at 346 , 439 S.E.2d at 774 (quoting Abernathy v. United States, 773 F.2d 184, 189 (8th Cir.1985)) (other citations omitted). | 2 | 2 |
Hedrick v. Rainsgreen1 sentence2018Id. at 556 , 638 S.E.2d at 265 (citations and quotation marks omitted); see, e.g., Hedrick v. Rains, 121 N.C. | 1 | 1 |
Harris v. Daimler Chrysler Corp.green2 sentences2018Id. at 556 , 638 S.E.2d at 265 (citations and quotation marks omitted); see, e.g., Hedrick v. Rains, 121 N.C. 2018Id. at 556 , 638 S.E.2d at 265 (citations and quotation marks omitted); see, e.g., Hedrick v. Rains, 121 N.C. | 1 | 1 |
Stein v. Asheville City Board of Educationgreen2 sentences2012Stein also notes that “[w]e have often remarked the law’s reluctance to burden individuals or organizations with a duty to prevent the criminal acts of others.” 360 N.C. at 328 , 626 S.E.2d at 268 (citation omitted). 2012Stein also notes that “[w]e have often remarked the law’s reluctance to burden individuals or organizations with a duty to prevent the criminal acts of others.” 360 N.C. at 328 , 626 S.E.2d at 268 (citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Davis v. Jessupgreen2 sentences2006The negligence of a driver of an automobile may also be imputed to a passenger through the following pertinent theories of vicarious liability, both of which require that the passenger “have the legal right to control the manner in which the automobile was being operated,” Davis v. Jessup and Carroll v. Jessup, 257 N.C. 215, 221 , 125 S.E.2d 440, 444 (1962) (citation omitted), rather than that the passenger actually exercise control of the vehicle. 2006The negligence of a driver of an automobile may also be imputed to a passenger through the following pertinent theories of vicarious liability, both of which require that the passenger “have the legal right to control the manner in which the automobile was being operated,” Davis v. Jessup and Carroll v. Jessup, 257 N.C. 215, 221 , 125 S.E.2d 440, 444 (1962) (citation omitted), rather than that the passenger actually exercise control of the vehicle. | 1 | 1 |
O'CONNOR v. Corbett Lumber Corp.green2 sentences1994In each example, “the chief factors justifying imposition of liability are 1) the ability to control the person and 2) knowledge of the person’s propensity for violence.” Abernathy v. United States, 773 F.2d 184, 189 (8th Cir. 1985); see O’Connor v. Corbett Lumber Corp., 84 N.C. 1994App. 178, 186 , 352 S.E.2d 267, 272-73 (1987) (summary judgment for defendant-employer affirmed where employer had no “custodial” duty to control prison work release employee outside the scope of the employment); Prosser and Keeton § 56, at 383 (duty arises if relationship is “custodial”). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
King v. Durham County Mental Health Developmental Disabilities & Substance Abuse Authority
green
2 sentences2006“In each example, ‘the chief factors justifying imposition of liability are 1) the ability to control the person and 2) knowledge of the person’s propensity for violence.’ ” Id. (emphasis added) (citation omitted). 2005The Court held that in deciding whether the necessary relationship exists," `the chief factors justifying imposition of liability are 1) the ability to control the person and 2) knowledge of the person's propensity for violence.'" Id. at 346 , 439 S.E.2d at 774 (quoting Abernathy v. United States, 773 F.2d 184, 189 (8th Cir.1985)). | 2 | 2005–2006 |
State v. . Steadman
green
1 sentence1962S. v. Melton, 187 N.C. 481 ; C.S. 564; S. v. Steadman, 200 N.C. 768 (769).” In S. v. Sutton, 230 N.C. 244 , 52 S.E. 2d 921 , it is written: “Evidence of an alibi is substantive and the defendant was entitled to an instruction as to the legal effect of his evidence of alibi, if believed and accepted by the jury. | 1 | 1962–1962 |
State v. Sutton
green
2 sentences1962S. v. Melton, 187 N.C. 481 ; C.S. 564; S. v. Steadman, 200 N.C. 768 (769).” In S. v. Sutton, 230 N.C. 244 , 52 S.E. 2d 921 , it is written: “Evidence of an alibi is substantive and the defendant was entitled to an instruction as to the legal effect of his evidence of alibi, if believed and accepted by the jury. 1962S. v. Melton, 187 N.C. 481 ; C.S. 564; S. v. Steadman, 200 N.C. 768 (769).” In S. v. Sutton, 230 N.C. 244 , 52 S.E. 2d 921 , it is written: “Evidence of an alibi is substantive and the defendant was entitled to an instruction as to the legal effect of his evidence of alibi, if believed and accepted by the jury. | 1 | 1962–1962 |
State v. . Sheffield
green
2 sentences1962In S. v. Melton, 187 N.C. 481 , 122 S.E. 17 , the Court said: “The defendant’s evidence of an alibi was substantive; it was vital; it was perhaps the chief defense on which he relied; and without tendering a special prayer he was entitled to an instruction as to the legal effect of his evidence if it should be accepted by the jury.” In S. v. Sheffield, 206 N.C. 374, 386 , 174 S.E. 105, 111 , it is said: “A defendant is entitled to instruction on alibi without special prayer. 1962In S. v. Melton, 187 N.C. 481 , 122 S.E. 17 , the Court said: “The defendant’s evidence of an alibi was substantive; it was vital; it was perhaps the chief defense on which he relied; and without tendering a special prayer he was entitled to an instruction as to the legal effect of his evidence if it should be accepted by the jury.” In S. v. Sheffield, 206 N.C. 374, 386 , 174 S.E. 105, 111 , it is said: “A defendant is entitled to instruction on alibi without special prayer. | 1 | 1962–1962 |
State v. . Melton
green
2 sentences1962In S. v. Melton, 187 N.C. 481 , 122 S.E. 17 , the Court said: “The defendant’s evidence of an alibi was substantive; it was vital; it was perhaps the chief defense on which he relied; and without tendering a special prayer he was entitled to an instruction as to the legal effect of his evidence if it should be accepted by the jury.” In S. v. Sheffield, 206 N.C. 374, 386 , 174 S.E. 105, 111 , it is said: “A defendant is entitled to instruction on alibi without special prayer. 1962In S. v. Melton, 187 N.C. 481 , 122 S.E. 17 , the Court said: “The defendant’s evidence of an alibi was substantive; it was vital; it was perhaps the chief defense on which he relied; and without tendering a special prayer he was entitled to an instruction as to the legal effect of his evidence if it should be accepted by the jury.” In S. v. Sheffield, 206 N.C. 374, 386 , 174 S.E. 105, 111 , it is said: “A defendant is entitled to instruction on alibi without special prayer. | 1 | 1962–1962 |
Ballard v. Ballard
green
2 sentences1950Ballard v. Ballard, 230 N.C. 629 , 55 S.E. 2d 316 . 1950Ballard v. Ballard, 230 N.C. 629 , 55 S.E. 2d 316 . | 1 | 1950–1950 |
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.