6 North Carolina opinions name it 3 courts 1984–2013 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 |
|---|---|---|
Town of Tryon v. Duke Power Co.green2 sentences2002In Town of Tryon v. Duke Power Co., 222 N.C. 200 , 22 S.E.2d 450 (1942) this Court acknowledged that, although the actual controversy rule may be difficult to apply in some cases and the definition of a “controversy” must depend on the facts of each case, “[a] mere difference of opinion between the parties” does not constitute a controversy within the meaning of the Declaratory Judgment Act. 2002In Town of Tryon v. Duke Power Co., 222 N.C. 200 , 22 S.E.2d 450 (1942) this Court acknowledged that, although the actual controversy rule may be difficult to apply in some cases and the definition of a “controversy” must depend on the facts of each case, “[a] mere difference of opinion between the parties” does not constitute a controversy within the meaning of the Declaratory Judgment Act. | 2 | 4 |
Carolina Power & Light Co. v. Iseleygreen2 sentences2013Thus, communications service providers satisfy the controversy requirement when they “allege in [their] complaint and show at the trial that a real controversy, arising out of [these statutory rights] .. . exists.” Carolina Power & Light Co., 203 N.C. at 820 , 167 S.E. at 61 ; Briscoe, 148 N.C. at 413 , 62 S.E. at 607 . 2013Thus, communications service providers satisfy the controversy requirement when they “allege in [their] complaint and show at the trial that a real controversy, arising out of [these statutory rights] .. . exists.” Carolina Power & Light Co., 203 N.C. at 820 , 167 S.E. at 61 ; Briscoe, 148 N.C. at 413 , 62 S.E. at 607 . | 1 | 1 |
Creek Pointe Homeowner's Ass'n v. Happgreen1 sentence2013See Creek Pointe Homeowner’s Ass’n, 146 N.C. | 1 | 1 |
Bullington v. . Angelgreen2 sentences2012THE LEGISLATIVE ROLE IN DEFINING SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION OF NORTH CAROLINA COURTS UNDER THE DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACT {55} The North Carolina Supreme Court’s treatment of the controversy requirement for adjudication under the Declaratory Judgment Act comports with the more general notion that the North Carolina General Assembly may, “‘within constitutional limitations, . . . fix and circumscribe the jurisdiction of the courts of this State,’” In re T.R.P., 360 N.C. at 590 , 636 S.E.2d at 790 (quoting Bullington v. Angel, 220 N.C. 18, 20 , 16 S.E.2d 411, 412 (1941)), such that “‘[w]here juri 2012THE LEGISLATIVE ROLE IN DEFINING SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION OF NORTH CAROLINA COURTS UNDER THE DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACT {55} The North Carolina Supreme Court’s treatment of the controversy requirement for adjudication under the Declaratory Judgment Act comports with the more general notion that the North Carolina General Assembly may, “‘within constitutional limitations, . . . fix and circumscribe the jurisdiction of the courts of this State,’” In re T.R.P., 360 N.C. at 590 , 636 S.E.2d at 790 (quoting Bullington v. Angel, 220 N.C. 18, 20 , 16 S.E.2d 411, 412 (1941)), such that “‘[w]here juri | 1 | 1 |
State Ex Rel. Utilities Commission v. Carolina Utility Customers Ass'n Inc.green2 sentences2012Customers Assoc., Inc., 348 N.C. 452, 461 , 500 S.E.2d 693, 700 (1998) (“[T]he Commission is required to render its decisions upon questions of law and of fact in the same manner as a court of record.” (emphasis added)). {65} While this Court has identified no binding decision of a North Carolina court that either instructs or prompts the Court to apply the controversy standard developed under the Act to matters that are “in the nature of declaratory judgment actions,” i.e., “non-Declaratory Judgment Act” cases in which declaratory relief is otherwise sought, a plain reading of the Act implies 2012Customers Assoc., Inc., 348 N.C. 452, 461 , 500 S.E.2d 693, 700 (1998) (“[T]he Commission is required to render its decisions upon questions of law and of fact in the same manner as a court of record.” (emphasis added)). {65} While this Court has identified no binding decision of a North Carolina court that either instructs or prompts the Court to apply the controversy standard developed under the Act to matters that are “in the nature of declaratory judgment actions,” i.e., “non-Declaratory Judgment Act” cases in which declaratory relief is otherwise sought, a plain reading of the Act implies | 1 | 1 |
Neuse River Foundation, Inc. v. Smithfield Foods, Inc.green1 sentence2012See, e.g., Neuse River Foundation, 155 N.C. | 1 | 1 |
Eudy v. Eudygreen2 sentences2012THE LEGISLATIVE ROLE IN DEFINING SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION OF NORTH CAROLINA COURTS UNDER THE DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACT {55} The North Carolina Supreme Court’s treatment of the controversy requirement for adjudication under the Declaratory Judgment Act comports with the more general notion that the North Carolina General Assembly may, “‘within constitutional limitations, . . . fix and circumscribe the jurisdiction of the courts of this State,’” In re T.R.P., 360 N.C. at 590 , 636 S.E.2d at 790 (quoting Bullington v. Angel, 220 N.C. 18, 20 , 16 S.E.2d 411, 412 (1941)), such that “‘[w]here juri 2012THE LEGISLATIVE ROLE IN DEFINING SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION OF NORTH CAROLINA COURTS UNDER THE DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACT {55} The North Carolina Supreme Court’s treatment of the controversy requirement for adjudication under the Declaratory Judgment Act comports with the more general notion that the North Carolina General Assembly may, “‘within constitutional limitations, . . . fix and circumscribe the jurisdiction of the courts of this State,’” In re T.R.P., 360 N.C. at 590 , 636 S.E.2d at 790 (quoting Bullington v. Angel, 220 N.C. 18, 20 , 16 S.E.2d 411, 412 (1941)), such that “‘[w]here juri | 1 | 1 |
Bailey & Associates, Inc. v. Wilmington Board of Adjustmentgreen1 sentence2012See Bailey & Assocs., 202 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 |
|---|---|---|
Briscoe v. Henderson Lighting & Power Co.
green
2 sentences2013Thus, communications service providers satisfy the controversy requirement when they “allege in [their] complaint and show at the trial that a real controversy, arising out of [these statutory rights] .. . exists.” Carolina Power & Light Co., 203 N.C. at 820 , 167 S.E. at 61 ; Briscoe, 148 N.C. at 413 , 62 S.E. at 607 . 2013Thus, communications service providers satisfy the controversy requirement when they “allege in [their] complaint and show at the trial that a real controversy, arising out of [these statutory rights] .. . exists.” Carolina Power & Light Co., 203 N.C. at 820 , 167 S.E. at 61 ; Briscoe, 148 N.C. at 413 , 62 S.E. at 607 . | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Gaston Board of Realtors, Inc. v. Harrison
green
2 sentences2013North Carolina’s Declaratory Judgment Act expands the controversy requirement by establishing that trial courts not only have jurisdiction over alleged prior violations of rights, but also when litigation over a potential violation “appear[s] unavoidable.” Gaston Bd. of Realtors, 311 N.C. at 234 , 316 S.E.2d at 61 . 2013North Carolina’s Declaratory Judgment Act expands the controversy requirement by establishing that trial courts not only have jurisdiction over alleged prior violations of rights, but also when litigation over a potential violation “appear[s] unavoidable.” Gaston Bd. of Realtors, 311 N.C. at 234 , 316 S.E.2d at 61 . | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Quick v. Quick
green
2 sentences2012THE LEGISLATIVE ROLE IN DEFINING SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION OF NORTH CAROLINA COURTS UNDER THE DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACT {55} The North Carolina Supreme Court’s treatment of the controversy requirement for adjudication under the Declaratory Judgment Act comports with the more general notion that the North Carolina General Assembly may, “‘within constitutional limitations, . . . fix and circumscribe the jurisdiction of the courts of this State,’” In re T.R.P., 360 N.C. at 590 , 636 S.E.2d at 790 (quoting Bullington v. Angel, 220 N.C. 18, 20 , 16 S.E.2d 411, 412 (1941)), such that “‘[w]here juri 2012THE LEGISLATIVE ROLE IN DEFINING SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION OF NORTH CAROLINA COURTS UNDER THE DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACT {55} The North Carolina Supreme Court’s treatment of the controversy requirement for adjudication under the Declaratory Judgment Act comports with the more general notion that the North Carolina General Assembly may, “‘within constitutional limitations, . . . fix and circumscribe the jurisdiction of the courts of this State,’” In re T.R.P., 360 N.C. at 590 , 636 S.E.2d at 790 (quoting Bullington v. Angel, 220 N.C. 18, 20 , 16 S.E.2d 411, 412 (1941)), such that “‘[w]here juri | 1 | 2012–2012 |
In Re TRP
green
1 sentence2012THE LEGISLATIVE ROLE IN DEFINING SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION OF NORTH CAROLINA COURTS UNDER THE DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACT {55} The North Carolina Supreme Court’s treatment of the controversy requirement for adjudication under the Declaratory Judgment Act comports with the more general notion that the North Carolina General Assembly may, “‘within constitutional limitations, . . . fix and circumscribe the jurisdiction of the courts of this State,’” In re T.R.P., 360 N.C. at 590 , 636 S.E.2d at 790 (quoting Bullington v. Angel, 220 N.C. 18, 20 , 16 S.E.2d 411, 412 (1941)), such that “‘[w]here juri | 1 | 2012–2012 |
In re T.R.P.
green
1 sentence2012THE LEGISLATIVE ROLE IN DEFINING SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION OF NORTH CAROLINA COURTS UNDER THE DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACT {55} The North Carolina Supreme Court’s treatment of the controversy requirement for adjudication under the Declaratory Judgment Act comports with the more general notion that the North Carolina General Assembly may, “‘within constitutional limitations, . . . fix and circumscribe the jurisdiction of the courts of this State,’” In re T.R.P., 360 N.C. at 590 , 636 S.E.2d at 790 (quoting Bullington v. Angel, 220 N.C. 18, 20 , 16 S.E.2d 411, 412 (1941)), such that “‘[w]here juri | 1 | 2012–2012 |
State Ex Rel. Utilities Commission v. Carolina Water Service, Inc.
green
2 sentences2012The text of the Act, nevertheless, sheds no meaningful light on the Carolina Water Service court’s use of the Act’s controversy standard to adjudicate a matter that came to the judiciary as an appeal of an administrative decision, under a statute granting specified powers of review. 149 N.C. 2012App. at 657–58, 562 S.E.2d at 62 ; N.C. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Adams v. North Carolina Department of Natural & Economic Resources
green
2 sentences1997We have described an actual controversy as a "jurisdictional prerequisite" to a proceeding brought under the Declaratory Judgment Act, the purpose of which is to "`preserve inviolate the ancient and sound juridic concept that the inherent function of judicial tribunals is to adjudicate genuine controversies between antagonistic litigants with respect to their rights, status or other legal relations.'" Adams, 295 N.C. at 703 , 249 S.E.2d at 414 (quoting Lide, 231 N.C. at 118 , 56 S.E.2d at 409 .) In Town of Tryon v. Duke Power Co., 222 N.C. 200, 205 , 22 S.E.2d 450, 453 (1942), our Supreme Cour 1997We have described an actual controversy as a "jurisdictional prerequisite" to a proceeding brought under the Declaratory Judgment Act, the purpose of which is to "`preserve inviolate the ancient and sound juridic concept that the inherent function of judicial tribunals is to adjudicate genuine controversies between antagonistic litigants with respect to their rights, status or other legal relations.'" Adams, 295 N.C. at 703 , 249 S.E.2d at 414 (quoting Lide, 231 N.C. at 118 , 56 S.E.2d at 409 .) In Town of Tryon v. Duke Power Co., 222 N.C. 200, 205 , 22 S.E.2d 450, 453 (1942), our Supreme Cour | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Lide v. Mears
green
2 sentences1997We have described an actual controversy as a "jurisdictional prerequisite" to a proceeding brought under the Declaratory Judgment Act, the purpose of which is to "`preserve inviolate the ancient and sound juridic concept that the inherent function of judicial tribunals is to adjudicate genuine controversies between antagonistic litigants with respect to their rights, status or other legal relations.'" Adams, 295 N.C. at 703 , 249 S.E.2d at 414 (quoting Lide, 231 N.C. at 118 , 56 S.E.2d at 409 .) In Town of Tryon v. Duke Power Co., 222 N.C. 200, 205 , 22 S.E.2d 450, 453 (1942), our Supreme Cour 1997We have described an actual controversy as a "jurisdictional prerequisite" to a proceeding brought under the Declaratory Judgment Act, the purpose of which is to "`preserve inviolate the ancient and sound juridic concept that the inherent function of judicial tribunals is to adjudicate genuine controversies between antagonistic litigants with respect to their rights, status or other legal relations.'" Adams, 295 N.C. at 703 , 249 S.E.2d at 414 (quoting Lide, 231 N.C. at 118 , 56 S.E.2d at 409 .) In Town of Tryon v. Duke Power Co., 222 N.C. 200, 205 , 22 S.E.2d 450, 453 (1942), our Supreme Cour | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Rental Towel & Uniform Service v. Bynum International, Inc.
green
2 sentences1987While the judge must submit to the jury such issues raised by the pleadings and evidence as are necessary to fairly adjudicate the controversy at bar, Rental Towel and Uniform Service v. Bynum International, Inc., 304 N.C. 174 , 282 S.E. 2d 426 (1981), the form and number of the issues submitted is within the sound discretion of the trial judge. 1987While the judge must submit to the jury such issues raised by the pleadings and evidence as are necessary to fairly adjudicate the controversy at bar, Rental Towel and Uniform Service v. Bynum International, Inc., 304 N.C. 174 , 282 S.E. 2d 426 (1981), the form and number of the issues submitted is within the sound discretion of the trial judge. | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Link v. Link
green
2 sentences1987Link v. Link, 278 N.C. 181 , 179 S.E. 2d 697 (1971). 1987Link v. Link, 278 N.C. 181 , 179 S.E. 2d 697 (1971). | 1 | 1987–1987 |
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.