7 North Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1907–2016 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 |
|---|---|---|
| No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in North Carolina. | ||
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in North Carolina. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Evans v. United Services Automobile Ass'n
green
2 sentences2016Evans, 142 N.C.App. at 28 -29 , 541 S.E.2d at 789 -790 . 2016Evans, 142 N.C.App. at 28 -29 , 541 S.E.2d at 789 -790 . | 2 | 2016–2016 |
Little v. Atkinson
green
1 sentence2010Id. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
In Re the Investigation of the Death of Miller
green
2 sentences2007Our Supreme Court stressed in Miller that the party claiming the privilege must establish the elements of the privilege for each communication sought to be protected. 357 N.C. at 336 , 584 S.E.2d at 787 . 2007Our Supreme Court stressed in Miller that the party claiming the privilege must establish the elements of the privilege for each communication sought to be protected. 357 N.C. at 336 , 584 S.E.2d at 787 . | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Keech v. Hendricks
green
1 sentence2002Keech v. Hendricks, 141 N.C. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Dr. Shoop Medicine Co. v. J. A. Mizell & Co.
green
1 sentence1922In the ease at bar the language used in Medicine Co. v. Mizell, supra, may appropriately be employed: “But it is positively stated in the order that there is no agreement, verbal or otherwise, affecting the terms of the order, except the one expressed therein, and to this the defendant freely assented by signing the written instrument. | 1 | 1922–1922 |
Klinck v. . Colby
neutral
2 sentences1907(Ex.), 181, quoted in Bryan v. Collins, supra, and commended by Folger, J., in Klench v. Colby, 46 N. Y., 427 , and in Hamilton v. Eno, 81 N. Y., 116 , it is said that tbe law considered a libellous “publication as malicious unless it is fairly made by a person in tbe discharge of some public or private duty, whether legal or moral, or in the conduct of his own affairs in matters where his interest is concerned.” As privileged communications are exceptions to the general rule which implies malice in a libellous publication and infers some damage, it rests with the party claiming the privilege 1907(Ex.), 181, quoted in Bryan v. Collins, supra , and commended by Folger, J. , in Klench v. Colby , 46 N.Y. 427 , and in Hamilton v. Eno , 81 N.Y. 116 , it is said (43) that the law considered a libelous "publication as malicious *Page 33 unless it is fairly made by a person in the discharge of some public or private duty, whether legal or moral, or in the conduct of his own affairs and in matters where his interest is concerned." As privileged communications are exceptions to the general rule which implies malice in a libelous publication and infers some damage, it rests with the party claimin | 1 | 1907–1907 |
Hamilton v. . Eno
green
2 sentences1907(Ex.), 181, quoted in Bryan v. Collins, supra, and commended by Folger, J., in Klench v. Colby, 46 N. Y., 427 , and in Hamilton v. Eno, 81 N. Y., 116 , it is said that tbe law considered a libellous “publication as malicious unless it is fairly made by a person in tbe discharge of some public or private duty, whether legal or moral, or in the conduct of his own affairs in matters where his interest is concerned.” As privileged communications are exceptions to the general rule which implies malice in a libellous publication and infers some damage, it rests with the party claiming the privilege 1907(Ex.), 181, quoted in Bryan v. Collins, supra , and commended by Folger, J. , in Klench v. Colby , 46 N.Y. 427 , and in Hamilton v. Eno , 81 N.Y. 116 , it is said (43) that the law considered a libelous "publication as malicious *Page 33 unless it is fairly made by a person in the discharge of some public or private duty, whether legal or moral, or in the conduct of his own affairs and in matters where his interest is concerned." As privileged communications are exceptions to the general rule which implies malice in a libelous publication and infers some damage, it rests with the party claimin | 1 | 1907–1907 |
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.