wilful violation (North Carolina) · Go Syfert
← North Carolina issues

wilful violation in North Carolina

7 North Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1894–1998 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.

Followed or applied (1)

CaseFollowedCited
Isdoll v. Scottsdale Insurancegreen
gactapp · 1995 · cited in 1 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 1998–1998
1 sentence

1998Co., 466 S.E.2d 48, 50 (Ga. Ct. App. 1995) (holding that a policy providing coverage for assault and battery and violation of a person’s civil rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1981 , et seq. or state law, but excluding “damages arising out of the wilful violation of a penal statute or ordinance committed by or with the knowledge or consent of any INSURED” to be fatally ambiguous), cert. denied, 219 Ga. Ct. App. 912, — S.E.2d - (1996).

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in North Carolina. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (10)

CaseCitedYears
Trought v. Richardson green
ncctapp · 1986
1 sentence

1986In Trought v. Richardson, 78 N.C.

11986–1986
Walker v. Westinghouse Electric Corp. green
ncctapp · 1985
1 sentence

1986This Court affirmed summary judgment for defendant, stating, “[o]ur decision in Sides rested on facts clearly showing a wilful violation of the law and was consistent with other jurisdictions’ insistence that the employer’s conduct be in clear violation of express public policy to be actionable.” Id. at 263, 335 S.E. 2d at 86 .

11986–1986
State v. Atkins green
ncctapp · 1982
2 sentences

1985“A wilful violation of any one of these statutes [N.C.G.S. 20-165.1, 20-138, -139] would constitute culpable negligence if that violation was the proximate cause of [the victim’s] death." State v. Atkins, 58 N.C.

1985App. 146, 148 , 292 S.E. 2d 744, 746 , cert. denied and appeal dismissed, 306 N.C. 744 (1982). 6 .

11985–1985
Rhodes v. Board of Education green
nc · 1982
1 sentence

1985App. 146, 148 , 292 S.E. 2d 744, 746 , cert. denied and appeal dismissed, 306 N.C. 744 (1982). 6 .

11985–1985
Manufacturing Co. v. . Arnold green
nc · 1947
2 sentences

1973Among other cases, plaintiff cites Manufacturing Co. v. Arnold, 228 N.C. 375 , 45 S.E. 2d 577 (1947).

1973Among other cases, plaintiff cites Manufacturing Co. v. Arnold, 228 N.C. 375 , 45 S.E. 2d 577 (1947).

11973–1973
Bloom v. Illinois green
scotus · 1968
2 sentences

1969I accept with full approval the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States in Duncan v. State of La., 391 U.S. 145, 194 , 88 S.Ct. 1444 , 20 L.Ed.2d 491, 522 , and in Bloom v. State of Ill., 391 U.S. 194 , 88 S.Ct. 1477 , 20 L.Ed.2d 522 .

1969I accept with full approval the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States in Duncan v. State of La., 391 U.S. 145, 194 , 88 S.Ct. 1444 , 20 L.Ed.2d 491, 522 , and in Bloom v. State of Ill., 391 U.S. 194 , 88 S.Ct. 1477 , 20 L.Ed.2d 522 .

11969–1969
Duncan v. Louisiana green
scotus · 1968
2 sentences

1969I accept with full approval the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States in Duncan v. State of La., 391 U.S. 145, 194 , 88 S.Ct. 1444 , 20 L.Ed.2d 491, 522 , and in Bloom v. State of Ill., 391 U.S. 194 , 88 S.Ct. 1477 , 20 L.Ed.2d 522 .

1969I accept with full approval the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States in Duncan v. State of La., 391 U.S. 145, 194 , 88 S.Ct. 1444 , 20 L.Ed.2d 491, 522 , and in Bloom v. State of Ill., 391 U.S. 194 , 88 S.Ct. 1477 , 20 L.Ed.2d 522 .

11969–1969
City of Goldsboro v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Co. neutral
nc · 1957
2 sentences

1959Goldsboro v. Railroad, 246 N.C. 101 , 97 S.E. 2d 486 , St.

1959Goldsboro v. Railroad, 246 N.C. 101 , 97 S.E. 2d 486 , St.

11959–1959
Vestal v. Moseley Vending MacHine Exchange, Inc. neutral
nc · 1941
2 sentences

1959Vestal v. Moseley Vending Machine Co., 219 N.C. 468 , 14 S.E. 2d 427 .” Even so, a careful examination of the record reveals that the facts found by the court below with respect to the wilful violation of the restraining order by each-of the re7 spondents are supported by competent evidence and such findings áre therefore binding upon appeal.

1959Vestal v. Moseley Vending Machine Co., 219 N.C. 468 , 14 S.E. 2d 427 .” Even so, a careful examination of the record reveals that the facts found by the court below with respect to the wilful violation of the restraining order by each-of the re7 spondents are supported by competent evidence and such findings áre therefore binding upon appeal.

11959–1959
New Orleans, Jackson, & Great Northern Railroad v. Hurst green
miss · 1859
1 sentence

1894In Railroad v. Hurst, 36 Miss., 660 , it is said: “ It is the right of the jury in such cases to protect the public by punitive damages against the negligence, folly or wickedness which might otherwise convert these great public blessings into the most dangerous nuisances.” The Railroad Commission Act (1891, ch. 320) sec. 11, provides that for a wilful violation of the rules and regulations made by the commissioners, railroad companies are liable for exemplary damages.

11894–1894

Where else courts name it

IL 113 (1904–2004) CT 24 (1992–2022) MA 16 (1963–2024) CA 12 (1943–1990) OR 11 (1979–1997) GA 11 (1909–2005) NY 8 (1926–2014) OH 8 (1935–2010) NC 7 (1894–1998) WI 6 (1939–2001) PA 5 (1927–1984) OK 5 (1992–2023) FL 5 (1924–2004) MO 4 (1891–1978) LA 4 (1972–2001) TX 4 (1912–1999) MI 4 (1914–2017) HI 3 (1998–2006) MN 3 (1965–1986) WV 3 (1932–1949) NM 3 (1985–2009) MS 3 (1999–2019) AL 3 (1938–2008) AZ 2 (1974–1998) MD 2 (1972–1986) VA 2 (1943–2015)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check