7 North Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1976–2020 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 |
|---|---|---|
Waters v. Qualified Personnel, Inc.green2 sentences1994Waters v. Personnel, Inc., 294 N.C. 200, 208 , 240 S.E.2d 338, 344 (1978). 1994Waters v. Personnel, Inc., 294 N.C. 200, 208 , 240 S.E.2d 338, 344 (1978). | 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. Richardson
green
2 sentences2020Thus, the promises made did not render his confession involuntary because "[p]romises or other statements indicating to an accused that he will receive some benefit if he confesses do not render his confession involuntary when made in response to a solicitation by the accused." Id. at 604 , 342 S.E.2d at 831 . 2020Thus, the promises made did not render his confession involuntary because "[p]romises or other statements indicating to an accused that he will receive some benefit if he confesses do not render his confession involuntary when made in response to a solicitation by the accused." Id. at 604 , 342 S.E.2d at 831 . | 3 | 1991–2020 |
Sebastian Richardson v. Director Federal Bureau of Pri
green
2 sentences2020The Richardson test also provides fairness to the defendant by incorporating an important corollary to the fair opportunity requirement—that is the notion that the plaintiff must present the issue of class certification to the trial court without “undue delay.” Richardson, 829 F.3d at 287 . 2020The Richardson test also provides fairness to the defendant by incorporating an important corollary to the fair opportunity requirement—that is the notion that the plaintiff must present the issue of class certification to the trial court without “undue delay.” Richardson, 829 F.3d at 287 . | 2 | 2020–2020 |
Reep v. Beck
green
2 sentences2020Further support for this interpretation of North Carolina class action law comes from this Court’s prior decision in Reep v. Beck, 360 N.C. 34 , 619 S.E.2d 497 (2005). 2020Further support for this interpretation of North Carolina class action law comes from this Court’s prior decision in Reep v. Beck, 360 N.C. 34 , 619 S.E.2d 497 (2005). | 2 | 2020–2020 |
Henderson v. Matthews
green
2 sentences1976Henderson v. Matthews, 290 N.C. 87 , 224 S.E. 2d 612 (1976) and cases therein cited. 1976Henderson v. Matthews, 290 N.C. 87 , 224 S.E. 2d 612 (1976) and cases therein cited. | 1 | 1976–1976 |
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.