Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
9 North Carolina opinions name it 3 courts 1993–2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Griffingreen2 sentences2025Rule 2 is a discretionary rule “which relates to the residual power of our appellate courts to consider, in exceptional circumstances, significant issues of importance in the public interest or to prevent injustice which appears manifest to the Court and only in such instances.” Griffin, 298 N.C. App. at 93, 914 S.E.2d at 13 (cleaned up). 2025Rule 2 is a discretionary rule “which relates to the residual power of our appellate courts to consider, in exceptional circumstances, significant issues of importance in the public interest or to prevent injustice which appears manifest to the Court and only in such instances.” Griffin, 298 N.C. App. at 93, 914 S.E.2d at 13 (cleaned up). | 1 | 1 |
Commissioner, Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Jeangreen1 sentence2017See Comm’r, Immigration & Naturalization Serv. v. Jean, 496 U.S. 154, 161 (1990) (explaining that, once a party establishes he is eligible for fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act, “the district court’s task of determining what fee [on fee award] is reasonable is essentially the same as that described in Hensley”); Ne. | 1 | 1 |
Couch v. Private Diagnostic Clinicgreen1 sentence2016See Couch, 146 N.C. | 1 | 1 |
In Re Contempt Proceeding of Smithgreen2 sentences2010This status “is ... not a right but *179 a discretionary privilege which allows out-of-state attorneys to appear pro hac vice in a state’s courts without meeting the state’s bar admission requirements.” In re Smith, 301 N.C. 621, 629 , 272 S.E.2d 834, 840 (1981). 2010This status “is ... not a right but *179 a discretionary privilege which allows out-of-state attorneys to appear pro hac vice in a state’s courts without meeting the state’s bar admission requirements.” In re Smith, 301 N.C. 621, 629 , 272 S.E.2d 834, 840 (1981). | 1 | 1 |
Mackins v. Mackinsgreen1 sentence2003Id. at 549, 442 S.E.2d at 359 (citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Kraft Foodservice, Inc. v. Hardeegreen1 sentence2003Id. at 549, 442 S.E.2d at 359 (citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Britt v. Allengreen2 sentences1993Britt v. Allen, 291 N.C. 630, 635 , 231 S.E.2d 607, 611 (1977). 1993Britt v. Allen, 291 N.C. 630, 635 , 231 S.E.2d 607, 611 (1977). | 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 v. Radomski
green
2 sentences2026Rule 2 is a discretionary rule which permits this Court “to suspend or vary the requirements or provisions of any Rules of Appellate Procedure in a case pending before it upon application of a party or upon its own initiative to prevent manifest injustice to a party, or to expedite decision in the public interest.” State v. Radomski, 294 N.C. App. 108 , 112, 901 S.E.2d 908 , 912 (cleaned up), disc. review denied, 386 N.C. 557 , 904 S.E.2d 542 (2024); see N.C.R. 2026Rule 2 is a discretionary rule which permits this Court “to suspend or vary the requirements or provisions of any Rules of Appellate Procedure in a case pending before it upon application of a party or upon its own initiative to prevent manifest injustice to a party, or to expedite decision in the public interest.” State v. Radomski, 294 N.C. App. 108 , 112, 901 S.E.2d 908 , 912 (cleaned up), disc. review denied, 386 N.C. 557 , 904 S.E.2d 542 (2024); see N.C.R. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Whitacre Partnership v. Biosignia, Inc.
green
1 sentence2017Id. at 37, 591 S.E.2d at 894 . 68. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
In Re Parker
green
1 sentence2004In re Parker, 90 N.C. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Worthington v. Bynum
green
2 sentences1993Although a trial court’s ruling on a motion for a new trial is usually subject to an abuse of discretion standard, Worthington v. Bynum, 305 N.C. 478 , 290 S.E.2d 599 (1982), if that motion is based upon an error of law the discretionary standard does not apply. 1993Although a trial court’s ruling on a motion for a new trial is usually subject to an abuse of discretion standard, Worthington v. Bynum, 305 N.C. 478 , 290 S.E.2d 599 (1982), if that motion is based upon an error of law the discretionary standard does not apply. | 1 | 1993–1993 |
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.