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 1980–2022 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 |
|---|---|---|
Yingling v. Bank of Americagreen2 sentences2022App at 834, 741 S.E.2d at 405 (citation omitted). ¶ 54 Here, it is uncontested that Plaintiff filed her disability claim after the 30-day statutory window. 2022App at 842, 741 S.E.2d at 405 . | 2 | 2 |
Richardson v. Maxim Healthcare/Allegis Groupgreen2 sentences2010See Richardson, 362 N.C. at 663 , 669 S.E.2d at 586 (“When an employer has actual notice of the accident, the employee need not give written notice, and therefore, the Commission need not make any findings about prejudice.”). 2010See Richardson, 362 N.C. at 663 , 669 S.E.2d at 586 (“When an employer has actual notice of the accident, the employee need not give written notice, and therefore, the Commission need not make any findings about prejudice.”). | 1 | 1 |
Nissan Division of Nissan Motor Corp. in U.S.A. v. Fred Anderson Nissangreen2 sentences1994As noted by Judge Wells in his concurring opinion in the Court of Appeals, the purpose of the notice requirement of section 20-305(4) is “to prevent franchisors from stonewalling proposed dealership changes or modifications by not responding to the dealer’s request or proposal.” Nissan Motor Corp. v. Fred Anderson Nissan, 111 N.C. 1994App. 748, 756 , 434 S.E.2d 224, 229 (1993). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Triplett
green
2 sentences2005Triplett, 316 N.C. at 12 , 340 S.E.2d at 743 . 2005Triplett, 316 N.C. at 12 , 340 S.E.2d at 743 . | 1 | 2005–2005 |
United States Ex Rel. Malpass Construction Co. v. Scotland Concrete Co.
green
1 sentence1989This same conclusion was reached in United States v. Scotland Concrete Company, 294 F. Supp. 1299 (E.D.N.C. 1968), a case construing the notice requirement under the Miller Act, 40 U.S.C. | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Blankenship Construction Co. v. North Carolina State Highway Commission
green
1 sentence1980While the form of the notice - written or oral - may not be critical, the content of the notice must satisfy the underlying purpose of the notice requirement ____In our opinion the purpose of the notice requirement of Section 4.3A is to apprise the Commission of the Contractor’s belief that he has encountered “work conditions at the site differing materially from those indicated in the contract” for which he is entitled to an “equitable adjustment.” Id. at 607, 222 S.E. 2d at 461 . | 1 | 1980–1980 |
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.