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 3 courts 2013–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Meiselman v. Meiselmangreen2 sentences2025The Maucks bring a Meiselman claim, so named for our decision in Meiselman v. Meiselman, 309 N.C. 279 (1983). 2013Defendants challenge the Meiselman claim as being improperly based on conclusory allegations without the specificity they contend is required by Meiselman’s holding that, “before it can be determined whether, in any given case, it has been “established” that liquidation is “reasonably necessary” to protect the complaining shareholder’s “rights or interest[s]”, the particular “rights or interests” of “the complaining shareholder” must be articulated.” 309 N.C. at 298 , 307 S.E.2d at 562 . {23} High Point Bank v. Sapona Mfg. | 1 | 6 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in North Carolina. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Loy v. Lorm Corp.
green
2 sentences2022We thus conclude that Norman is inapplicable to the issue before us. ¶ 49 Duffy also relies on Loy v. Lorm Corp., in which this Court reversed the trial court’s entry of summary judgment and allowed a minority shareholder to pursue relief against three fellow shareholders who together held a majority interest, served as corporate “directors and officers[,]” were “firmly in control” of the corporation, and had common interests stemming from their related, jointly owned business. 52 N.C. 2022We thus conclude that Norman is inapplicable to the issue before us. ¶ 49 Duffy also relies on Loy v. Lorm Corp., in which this Court reversed the trial court’s entry of summary judgment and allowed a minority shareholder to pursue relief against three fellow shareholders who together held a majority interest, served as corporate “directors and officers[,]” were “firmly in control” of the corporation, and had common interests stemming from their related, jointly owned business. 52 N.C. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
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.