larger claim (North Carolina) · Go Syfert
← North Carolina issues

larger claim in North Carolina

7 North Carolina opinions name it 3 courts 1983–2019 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.

Followed or applied (3)

CaseFollowedCited
Moore v. Fraziergreen
ncctapp · 1983 · cited in 3 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 1995–2014
2 sentences

2014For that reason, “establishing an accord and satisfaction . . . as a matter of law requires evidence that permits no reasonable inference to the contrary and that shows the ‘unequivocal’ intent of one party to make and the other party to accept a lesser payment in satisfaction . . . of a larger claim.” Moore v. Frazier, 63 N.C.

2003“Establishing an accord and satisfaction ... as a matter of law requires evidence that permits no reasonable inference to the contrary and that shows the ‘unequivocal’ intent of one party to make and the other party to accept a lesser payment in satisfaction ... of a larger claim.” Moore v. Frazier, 63 N.C.

33
State v. Abshiregreen
nc · 2009 · cited in 2 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2019–2019
2 sentences

2019This Court addressed SBM in State v. Bowditch , 364 N.C. 335 , 342, 700 S.E.2d 1 , 6 (2010), and determined that the legislature intended SBM to be "a nonpunitive, regulatory program." The Court looked to the legislature's purpose in placing SBM in the same chapter as the sex offender registration laws and concluded that SBM was one part of a larger framework involving the sex offender registration program, stating that the "legislative objective [was] to make the SBM program one part of a broader regulatory means of confronting the unique 'threat to public safety posed by the recidivist tende

2019This Court addressed SBM in State v. Bowditch , 364 N.C. 335 , 342, 700 S.E.2d 1 , 6 (2010), and determined that the legislature intended SBM to be "a nonpunitive, regulatory program." The Court looked to the legislature's purpose in placing SBM in the same chapter as the sex offender registration laws and concluded that SBM was one part of a larger framework involving the sex offender registration program, stating that the "legislative objective [was] to make the SBM program one part of a broader regulatory means of confronting the unique 'threat to public safety posed by the recidivist tende

12
Allgood v. Wilmington Savings & Trust Companygreen
nc · 1955 · cited in 2 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 1983–2014
2 sentences

2014App. 476, 478-79 , 305 S.E.2d 562, 564 (1983) (citing Allgood, 242 N.C. at 515 , 88 S.E.2d at 831 ).

2014App. 476, 478-79 , 305 S.E.2d 562, 564 (1983) (citing Allgood, 242 N.C. at 515 , 88 S.E.2d at 831 ).

12

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in North Carolina. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (2)

CaseCitedYears
State v. Bowditch green
nc · 2010
2 sentences

2019This Court addressed SBM in State v. Bowditch , 364 N.C. 335 , 342, 700 S.E.2d 1 , 6 (2010), and determined that the legislature intended SBM to be "a nonpunitive, regulatory program." The Court looked to the legislature's purpose in placing SBM in the same chapter as the sex offender registration laws and concluded that SBM was one part of a larger framework involving the sex offender registration program, stating that the "legislative objective [was] to make the SBM program one part of a broader regulatory means of confronting the unique 'threat to public safety posed by the recidivist tende

2019This Court addressed SBM in State v. Bowditch , 364 N.C. 335 , 342, 700 S.E.2d 1 , 6 (2010), and determined that the legislature intended SBM to be "a nonpunitive, regulatory program." The Court looked to the legislature's purpose in placing SBM in the same chapter as the sex offender registration laws and concluded that SBM was one part of a larger framework involving the sex offender registration program, stating that the "legislative objective [was] to make the SBM program one part of a broader regulatory means of confronting the unique 'threat to public safety posed by the recidivist tende

22019–2019
Cullen v. Valley Forge Life Insurance green
ncctapp · 2003
1 sentence

2017Co., 161 N.C.

12017–2017

Where else courts name it

NY 12 (1876–1982) NC 7 (1983–2019) AK 7 (1992–2025) PA 7 (1927–2023) OH 5 (1950–2015) CT 5 (1976–2016) IN 5 (1982–2025) NV 5 (2018–2018) NJ 4 (1906–2015) MA 4 (1937–2019) CA 4 (1869–1971) WI 4 (1876–2009) TX 3 (1954–2023) LA 3 (1961–1986) NM 3 (1992–2021) FL 3 (1996–2014) OR 3 (1942–2014) MI 2 (1890–1992) IA 2 (1919–2010) AL 2 (1974–2012) WV 2 (1977–1988) MO 2 (1976–1985) AZ 2 (1979–1983) IL 2 (1901–1992) GA 2 (2021–2025)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check