7 North Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1985–2021 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 |
|---|---|---|
Romulus v. Romulusgreen2 sentences2021Romulus v. Romulus, 215 N.C. 2021Romulus v. Romulus, 215 N.C. | 2 | 2 |
Thompson v. Thompsongreen2 sentences2011Defendant argues that plaintiffs testimony alone cannot, as a matter of law, suffice to rebut the marital property presumption: “the donor’s testimony alone that [s]he lacked the requisite intent is insufficient to rebut the marital gift presumption.” Warren. 175 N.C. at 514, 623 S.E.2d at 803 (citing Thompson. 93 N.C. 2011App. at 232 , 377 S.E.2d at 768-69 (defendant’s testimony alone “certainly” did not rise to the level of clear, cogent, and convincing evidence); and 3 Reynolds, supra. § 12.33, at 12-102 (“Often the only evidence of a lack of donative intent is the donor’s testimony. | 2 | 2 |
McLeod v. McLeodgreen2 sentences2011In McLean v. McLean, 323 N.C. 543, 546-47 , 374 S.E.2d 376, 378-79 , our Supreme Court addressed the operation of the marital gift presumption as established in McLeod v. McLeod, 74 N.C. 2011App. 144 , 327 S.E.2d 910 and how this presumption may be rebutted. [Considering the nature of the marital relationship and of the entireties estate, we conclude that the marital gift presumption established in McLeod is appropriate as an aid in construing N.C.G.S. § 50-20(b)(2). | 1 | 3 |
McLean v. McLeangreen2 sentences2011App. 285, 289-90 , 363 S.E.2d 95, 98-99 (1987), this Court noted that the trial court found that the defendant had not presented “clear, cogent, and convincing” evidence sufficient to rebut the marital gift presumption. 1988Id. at 295, 363 S.E. 2d at 101-02 . | 1 | 2 |
Warren v. Warrengreen2 sentences2011Defendant argues that plaintiffs testimony alone cannot, as a matter of law, suffice to rebut the marital property presumption: “the donor’s testimony alone that [s]he lacked the requisite intent is insufficient to rebut the marital gift presumption.” Warren. 175 N.C. at 514, 623 S.E.2d at 803 (citing Thompson. 93 N.C. 2011App. 509 , 623 S.E.2d 800 (2006) to argue that “the donor’s testimony alone that [s]he lacked the requisite intent is insufficient to rebut the marital gift presumption.” See id. at 514 , 623 S.E.2d at 803 . | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Loeb v. Loeb
green
2 sentences1988One was the marital property presumption announced in Loeb v. Loeb, 72 N.C. 1985The marital gift presumption follows naturally from this Court’s previous decisions in Loeb, 72 N.C. | 2 | 1985–1988 |
Haywood v. Haywood
green
1 sentence2011However, it has expressed its approval of this Court’s holdings which left the determination of the weight of the evidence “to the trial court’s discretion” in Haywood v. Haywood, 106 N.C. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
McLean v. McLean
green
2 sentences2011(Emphasis in original.) We must therefore review the development of the marital gift presumption and how it may be rebutted from McLean v. McLean, 323 N.C. 543 , 374 S.E.2d 376 to the present, to determine if a rule as articulated by Reynolds has actually been established in our caselaw. 2011(Emphasis in original.) We must therefore review the development of the marital gift presumption and how it may be rebutted from McLean v. McLean, 323 N.C. 543 , 374 S.E.2d 376 to the present, to determine if a rule as articulated by Reynolds has actually been established in our caselaw. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Lawrence v. Lawrence
green
1 sentence2011Likewise, in Lawrence v. Lawrence, this Court considered whether a parcel of real property purchased with the husband’s inheritance but deeded to both parties as tenants by the entireties was properly classified as his separate property. 100 N.C. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Johnson v. Johnson
green
2 sentences1988Moreover, while the marital property presumption is unnecessary under our statutory scheme, see id. at 455 n.4, 346 S.E. 2d at 440 n.4, the marital gift presumption established in McLeod is necessary to clarify application of otherwise potentially ambiguous provisions of the statute. 1988Moreover, while the marital property presumption is unnecessary under our statutory scheme, see id. at 455 n.4, 346 S.E. 2d at 440 n.4, the marital gift presumption established in McLeod is necessary to clarify application of otherwise potentially ambiguous provisions of the statute. | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Wade v. Wade
green
1 sentence1985App. 205 , 324 S.E. 2d 33 and Wade, 72 N.C. | 1 | 1985–1985 |
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.