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.
6 North Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1956–2017 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 |
|---|---|---|
Hill v. Williamsgreen2 sentences2010See Hill, 144 N.C. 2010See Hill, 144 N.C. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Hillgreen2 sentences2005Most recently, in State v. Hill, 168 N.C. 2005Most recently, in State v. Hill, this Court held that an open court discussion probing each of the three concerns stated in 15A-1242 was sufficient to support a waiver. ___ N.C.App. ___, ___, 607 S.E.2d 670, 673-74 (2005). | 1 | 1 |
Markham v. Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurancegreen1 sentence2000App. 443, 455 , 481 S.E.2d 349, 357 (“although plaintiff is entitled to full recovery for its damages, plaintiff is nevertheless not entitled to ‘double recovery’ for the same loss or injury”) (citation omitted), disc. review denied, 346 N.C. 281 , 487 S.E.2d 551 (1997). *33 The jury awarded plaintiffs $30,000.00 in damages for injuries resulting from Mr. Hill’s violation of Chapter 75, as outlined in issue 11. | 1 | 1 |
Howard v. Boycegreen2 sentences1982See Howard v. Boyce, 254 N.C. 255 , 118 S.E. 2d 897 (1961). 1982See Howard v. Boyce, 254 N.C. 255 , 118 S.E. 2d 897 (1961). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Phelps v. McCotter
green
2 sentences2017The dissenting opinion asserts that because "there is no evidence upon which to assess the validity of the trial court's ruling, we should not presume that the trial court erred but should instead affirm the trial court's order." In particular, the dissent cites Phelps v. McCotter , 252 N.C. 66 , 67, 112 S.E.2d 736 , 737 (1960) (per curiam), for the "well established principle that there is a presumption in favor of the regularity and validity of the proceedings in the lower court"; King v. King , 146 N.C. 2017The dissenting opinion asserts that because "there is no evidence upon which to assess the validity of the trial court's ruling, we should not presume that the trial court erred but should instead affirm the trial court's order." In particular, the dissent cites Phelps v. McCotter , 252 N.C. 66 , 67, 112 S.E.2d 736 , 737 (1960) (per curiam), for the "well established principle that there is a presumption in favor of the regularity and validity of the proceedings in the lower court"; King v. King , 146 N.C. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
King v. King
green
1 sentence2017The dissenting opinion asserts that because "there is no evidence upon which to assess the validity of the trial court's ruling, we should not presume that the trial court erred but should instead affirm the trial court's order." In particular, the dissent cites Phelps v. McCotter , 252 N.C. 66 , 67, 112 S.E.2d 736 , 737 (1960) (per curiam), for the "well established principle that there is a presumption in favor of the regularity and validity of the proceedings in the lower court"; King v. King , 146 N.C. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Melvin v. Home Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n
neutral
1 sentence2000App. 443, 455 , 481 S.E.2d 349, 357 (“although plaintiff is entitled to full recovery for its damages, plaintiff is nevertheless not entitled to ‘double recovery’ for the same loss or injury”) (citation omitted), disc. review denied, 346 N.C. 281 , 487 S.E.2d 551 (1997). *33 The jury awarded plaintiffs $30,000.00 in damages for injuries resulting from Mr. Hill’s violation of Chapter 75, as outlined in issue 11. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Markham v. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins.
green
1 sentence2000App. 443, 455 , 481 S.E.2d 349, 357 (“although plaintiff is entitled to full recovery for its damages, plaintiff is nevertheless not entitled to ‘double recovery’ for the same loss or injury”) (citation omitted), disc. review denied, 346 N.C. 281 , 487 S.E.2d 551 (1997). *33 The jury awarded plaintiffs $30,000.00 in damages for injuries resulting from Mr. Hill’s violation of Chapter 75, as outlined in issue 11. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
State v. Alston
green
1 sentence1956Garrett v. Rose, 236 N.C. 299, 305 , 72 S.E. 2d 843 . | 1 | 1956–1956 |
Garrett v. Rose
green
1 sentence1956Garrett v. Rose, 236 N.C. 299, 305 , 72 S.E. 2d 843 . | 1 | 1956–1956 |
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.