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.
7 North Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1953–2017 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 |
|---|---|---|
Perkins v. Langdongreen2 sentences2017HINNANT Tyson, J., dissenting 2017). “[T]o charge one with notice, the activating information known to the party sought to be charged must ordinarily be such as may reasonably be said to excite inquiry respecting the particular fact or facts necessary to be disclosed in order to fix the party charged with notice.” Perkins v. Langdon, 237 N.C. 159, 168 , 74 S.E.2d 634, 642 (1953) (citations omitted). “[I]mplicit in the principles that underlie the doctrine of constructive notice is the concept that before one is affected with notice of whatever reasonable inquiry would disclose, the circumstanc 2017HINNANT Tyson, J., dissenting 2017). “[T]o charge one with notice, the activating information known to the party sought to be charged must ordinarily be such as may reasonably be said to excite inquiry respecting the particular fact or facts necessary to be disclosed in order to fix the party charged with notice.” Perkins v. Langdon, 237 N.C. 159, 168 , 74 S.E.2d 634, 642 (1953) (citations omitted). “[I]mplicit in the principles that underlie the doctrine of constructive notice is the concept that before one is affected with notice of whatever reasonable inquiry would disclose, the circumstanc | 3 | 4 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in North Carolina. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Vail v. Vail
green
1 sentence2008Vail at 117 , 63 S.E.2d at 208 . | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Thompson v. Three Guys Furniture Co.
green
1 sentence1997Thus, even if Triangle had engaged in the inquiries that Wilson testified were the standard of care in the industry, there is nothing to indicate Triangle would have been put on notice that Margono was an “incompetent or reckless driver who is likely to cause injury to others....” Thompson , 122 N.C. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Truitt v. . Grandy
neutral
2 sentences1953Truitt v. Grandy, 115 N.C. 54 , 20 S.E. 293 ; Kian v. Ketalogiannis, 158 Va. 129 , 163 S.E. 535 , 82 A.L.R. 894 ; Hoy v. Bramhalf, 19 N. J. 1953Truitt v. Grandy, 115 N.C. 54 , 20 S.E. 293 ; Kian v. Ketalogiannis, 158 Va. 129 , 163 S.E. 535 , 82 A.L.R. 894 ; Hoy v. Bramhalf, 19 N. J. | 1 | 1953–1953 |
Kian v. Kefalogiannis
green
2 sentences1953Truitt v. Grandy, 115 N.C. 54 , 20 S.E. 293 ; Kian v. Ketalogiannis, 158 Va. 129 , 163 S.E. 535 , 82 A.L.R. 894 ; Hoy v. Bramhalf, 19 N. J. 1953Truitt v. Grandy, 115 N.C. 54 , 20 S.E. 293 ; Kian v. Ketalogiannis, 158 Va. 129 , 163 S.E. 535 , 82 A.L.R. 894 ; Hoy v. Bramhalf, 19 N. J. | 1 | 1953–1953 |
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.