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 1983–2022 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Keith v. Daygreen2 sentences1993“Since the purpose of the security requirement is to protect the restrained party from damages incurred as a result of the wrongful issuance of the injunctive relief, the trial court has the discretion to determine what amount of security, if any, is necessary to protect the enjoined party’s interests.” Keith v. Day, 60 N.C.App. 559, 561 , 299 S.E.2d 296, 297 (1983). 1993“Since the purpose of the security requirement is to protect the restrained party from damages incurred as a result of the wrongful issuance of the injunctive relief, the trial court has the discretion to determine what amount of security, if any, is necessary to protect the enjoined party’s interests.” Keith v. Day, 60 N.C.App. 559, 561 , 299 S.E.2d 296, 297 (1983). | 1 | 3 |
Piazza v. Kirkbridegreen1 sentence2022North Carolina courts have found that section 78A-56(a)(1) corresponds to “federal actions based upon Rule 10b-5 of Section 10(b) of the Securities Act of 1934.” Piazza v. Kirkbride, 246 N.C. | 1 | 1 |
Barr-Mullin, Inc. v. Browninggreen2 sentences2017“Since the purpose of the security requirement is to protect the restrained party from damages incurred as a result of the wrongful issuance of the injunctive relief, the trial court has the discretion to determine what amount of security, if any, is necessary to protect the enjoined party’s interests.” Barr- Mullin, Inc. v. Browning, 108 N.C. 2017App. 590, 598 , 424 S.E.2d 226, 231 (1993) (citing Keith v. Day, 60 N.C. | 1 | 1 |
Salim Aoude v. Mobil Oil Corporationgreen1 sentence2015Pashby v. Delia, 709 F.3d 307, 332 (4th Cir. 2013) (citation omitted); see also Aoude v. Mobil Oil Corp., 862 F.2d 890, 896 (1st Cir. 1988) (“posting of a bond is not a jurisdictional prerequisite to the validity of a preliminary injunction”); Clarkson Co. v. Shaheen, 544 F.2d 624 , 632 (2nd Cir. 1976) (“[B]ecause, under Fed. | 1 | 1 |
Henry Pashby v. Albert Deliagreen1 sentence2015Pashby v. Delia, 709 F.3d 307, 332 (4th Cir. 2013) (citation omitted); see also Aoude v. Mobil Oil Corp., 862 F.2d 890, 896 (1st Cir. 1988) (“posting of a bond is not a jurisdictional prerequisite to the validity of a preliminary injunction”); Clarkson Co. v. Shaheen, 544 F.2d 624 , 632 (2nd Cir. 1976) (“[B]ecause, under Fed. | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Leonard E. Warner, Inc. v. Nissan Motor Corp.
green
2 sentences2017Warner, Inc. v. Nissan Motor Corp. in U.S.A. , 66 N.C.App. 73 , 76, 311 S.E.2d 1 , 3 (1984) ("The purpose of the security requirement is to protect the restrained party from damages incurred as a result of the wrongful issuance of the injunctive relief." (citation omitted)). 2017Warner, Inc. v. Nissan Motor Corp. in U.S.A. , 66 N.C.App. 73 , 76, 311 S.E.2d 1 , 3 (1984) ("The purpose of the security requirement is to protect the restrained party from damages incurred as a result of the wrongful issuance of the injunctive relief." (citation omitted)). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Clarkson Co., Ltd. v. Shaheen
green
1 sentence2015Pashby v. Delia, 709 F.3d 307, 332 (4th Cir. 2013) (citation omitted); see also Aoude v. Mobil Oil Corp., 862 F.2d 890, 896 (1st Cir. 1988) (“posting of a bond is not a jurisdictional prerequisite to the validity of a preliminary injunction”); Clarkson Co. v. Shaheen, 544 F.2d 624 , 632 (2nd Cir. 1976) (“[B]ecause, under Fed. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Citizens for a Better Environment v. Village of Elm Grove
green
1 sentence1983Citizens v. Village of Elm Grove, 472 F. Supp. 1183 (E.D. | 1 | 1983–1983 |
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.