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 1979–2018 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 |
|---|---|---|
Hurston v. Hurstongreen2 sentences2017Agency, Inc. v. Barber , 147 N.C.App. 463 , 470, 556 S.E.2d 331 , 336 (2001). "[H]e who comes into equity must come with clean hands; otherwise his claim to equity will be barred by the doctrine of unclean hands." Hurston v. Hurston, 179 N.C.App. 809 , 814, 635 S.E.2d 451 , 454 (2006). 2017Agency, Inc. v. Barber , 147 N.C.App. 463 , 470, 556 S.E.2d 331 , 336 (2001). "[H]e who comes into equity must come with clean hands; otherwise his claim to equity will be barred by the doctrine of unclean hands." Hurston v. Hurston, 179 N.C.App. 809 , 814, 635 S.E.2d 451 , 454 (2006). | 1 | 2 |
Poole v. Copland, Inc.green2 sentences2018Indeed, the Court instructed the jury that the doctrine of unclean hands “does not extend to [a] party’s general character,” (Jury Instructions 9), and the jury is presumed to follow its instructions, see, e.g., Poole v. Copland, Inc., 348 N.C. 260, 264 , 498 S.E.2d 602, 604 (1998). 37. 2018Indeed, the Court instructed the jury that the doctrine of unclean hands “does not extend to [a] party’s general character,” (Jury Instructions 9), and the jury is presumed to follow its instructions, see, e.g., Poole v. Copland, Inc., 348 N.C. 260, 264 , 498 S.E.2d 602, 604 (1998). 37. | 1 | 1 |
Food Lion, Inc. v. Capital Cities/ABC, Inc.green2 sentences2017See Food Lion, Inc. v. Capital Cities/ABC, Inc., 951 F. Supp. 1233, 1234 (M.D.N.C. 1996) (applying North Carolina law and holding that to litigants who have acted in bad faith, or whose conduct has been dishonest, deceitful, fraudulent, unfair, or overreaching in regard to the transaction in controversy.” Collins v. Davis, 68 N.C. 2017See Food Lion, Inc. v. Capital Cities/ABC, Inc., 951 F. Supp. 1233, 1234 (M.D.N.C. 1996) (applying North Carolina law and holding that to litigants who have acted in bad faith, or whose conduct has been dishonest, deceitful, fraudulent, unfair, or overreaching in regard to the transaction in controversy.” Collins v. Davis, 68 N.C. | 1 | 1 |
Collins v. Davisgreen2 sentences2017See Food Lion, Inc. v. Capital Cities/ABC, Inc., 951 F. Supp. 1233, 1234 (M.D.N.C. 1996) (applying North Carolina law and holding that to litigants who have acted in bad faith, or whose conduct has been dishonest, deceitful, fraudulent, unfair, or overreaching in regard to the transaction in controversy.” Collins v. Davis, 68 N.C. 2017See Food Lion, Inc. v. Capital Cities/ABC, Inc., 951 F. Supp. 1233, 1234 (M.D.N.C. 1996) (applying North Carolina law and holding that to litigants who have acted in bad faith, or whose conduct has been dishonest, deceitful, fraudulent, unfair, or overreaching in regard to the transaction in controversy.” Collins v. Davis, 68 N.C. | 1 | 1 |
Whitacre Partnership v. Biosignia, Inc.green2 sentences2017See Whitacre P'ship v. Biosignia, Inc. , 358 N.C. 1 , 18, 591 S.E.2d 870 , 881 (2004) ( recognizing quasi-estoppel as a branch of equitable estoppel); Pittman v. Barker, 117 N.C.App. 580 , 591, 452 S.E.2d 326 , 332, ("[E]quitable defenses ... [include] estoppel, laches, ratification, and waiver[.]"), disc. review denied 340 N.C. 261 , 456 S.E.2d 833 (1995). *595 *715 Presuming, arguendo , that Discovery is correct in asserting common law equitable principles are applicable here, Discovery cannot claim the benefit of equitable defenses because of the doctrine of unclean hands. 2017See Whitacre P'ship v. Biosignia, Inc. , 358 N.C. 1 , 18, 591 S.E.2d 870 , 881 (2004) ( recognizing quasi-estoppel as a branch of equitable estoppel); Pittman v. Barker, 117 N.C.App. 580 , 591, 452 S.E.2d 326 , 332, ("[E]quitable defenses ... [include] estoppel, laches, ratification, and waiver[.]"), disc. review denied 340 N.C. 261 , 456 S.E.2d 833 (1995). *595 *715 Presuming, arguendo , that Discovery is correct in asserting common law equitable principles are applicable here, Discovery cannot claim the benefit of equitable defenses because of the doctrine of unclean hands. | 1 | 1 |
Lane v. Lanegreen1 sentence2006See Lane v. Lane, 115 N.C. | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Brissett v. First Mount Vernon Industrial Loan Ass'n
green
1 sentence2018Loan Ass’n, 233 N.C. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Pittman v. Barker
green
2 sentences2017See Whitacre P'ship v. Biosignia, Inc. , 358 N.C. 1 , 18, 591 S.E.2d 870 , 881 (2004) ( recognizing quasi-estoppel as a branch of equitable estoppel); Pittman v. Barker, 117 N.C.App. 580 , 591, 452 S.E.2d 326 , 332, ("[E]quitable defenses ... [include] estoppel, laches, ratification, and waiver[.]"), disc. review denied 340 N.C. 261 , 456 S.E.2d 833 (1995). *595 *715 Presuming, arguendo , that Discovery is correct in asserting common law equitable principles are applicable here, Discovery cannot claim the benefit of equitable defenses because of the doctrine of unclean hands. 2017See Whitacre P'ship v. Biosignia, Inc. , 358 N.C. 1 , 18, 591 S.E.2d 870 , 881 (2004) ( recognizing quasi-estoppel as a branch of equitable estoppel); Pittman v. Barker, 117 N.C.App. 580 , 591, 452 S.E.2d 326 , 332, ("[E]quitable defenses ... [include] estoppel, laches, ratification, and waiver[.]"), disc. review denied 340 N.C. 261 , 456 S.E.2d 833 (1995). *595 *715 Presuming, arguendo , that Discovery is correct in asserting common law equitable principles are applicable here, Discovery cannot claim the benefit of equitable defenses because of the doctrine of unclean hands. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Wade S. Dunbar Insurance Agency, Inc. v. Barber
green
2 sentences2017Agency, Inc. v. Barber , 147 N.C.App. 463 , 470, 556 S.E.2d 331 , 336 (2001). "[H]e who comes into equity must come with clean hands; otherwise his claim to equity will be barred by the doctrine of unclean hands." Hurston v. Hurston, 179 N.C.App. 809 , 814, 635 S.E.2d 451 , 454 (2006). 2017Agency, Inc. v. Barber , 147 N.C.App. 463 , 470, 556 S.E.2d 331 , 336 (2001). "[H]e who comes into equity must come with clean hands; otherwise his claim to equity will be barred by the doctrine of unclean hands." Hurston v. Hurston, 179 N.C.App. 809 , 814, 635 S.E.2d 451 , 454 (2006). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
In re Glenaire, Inc.
neutral
1 sentence2017See Whitacre P'ship v. Biosignia, Inc. , 358 N.C. 1 , 18, 591 S.E.2d 870 , 881 (2004) ( recognizing quasi-estoppel as a branch of equitable estoppel); Pittman v. Barker, 117 N.C.App. 580 , 591, 452 S.E.2d 326 , 332, ("[E]quitable defenses ... [include] estoppel, laches, ratification, and waiver[.]"), disc. review denied 340 N.C. 261 , 456 S.E.2d 833 (1995). *595 *715 Presuming, arguendo , that Discovery is correct in asserting common law equitable principles are applicable here, Discovery cannot claim the benefit of equitable defenses because of the doctrine of unclean hands. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Scarlett v. Riley
neutral
1 sentence2017See Whitacre P'ship v. Biosignia, Inc. , 358 N.C. 1 , 18, 591 S.E.2d 870 , 881 (2004) ( recognizing quasi-estoppel as a branch of equitable estoppel); Pittman v. Barker, 117 N.C.App. 580 , 591, 452 S.E.2d 326 , 332, ("[E]quitable defenses ... [include] estoppel, laches, ratification, and waiver[.]"), disc. review denied 340 N.C. 261 , 456 S.E.2d 833 (1995). *595 *715 Presuming, arguendo , that Discovery is correct in asserting common law equitable principles are applicable here, Discovery cannot claim the benefit of equitable defenses because of the doctrine of unclean hands. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Virginia Trust Co. v. Lambeth Realty Corp.
neutral
2 sentences1979Cf. Trust Co. v. Realty Corporation, 215 N.C. 526 , 2 S.E.2d 544 (1939). 1979Cf. Trust Co. v. Realty Corporation, 215 N.C. 526 , 2 S.E.2d 544 (1939). | 1 | 1979–1979 |
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.