7 North Carolina opinions name it 3 courts 1993–2017 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 |
|---|---|---|
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 |
|---|---|---|
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.