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 1981–2017 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Summersgreen2 sentences2014See State v. Summers, 351 N.C. 620, 626 , 528 S.E.2d 17, 22 (2000) (holding that “the elements of collateral estoppel were satisfied” when, inter alia, “the district attorney is in privity with the Attorney General”). 2014See State v. Summers, 351 N.C. 620, 626 , 528 S.E.2d 17, 22 (2000) (holding that “the elements of collateral estoppel were satisfied” when, inter alia, “the district attorney is in privity with the Attorney General”). | 1 | 1 |
Hankins v. Somersgreen2 sentences2003Indeed, "there is no requirement that the cause of action, pursuant to which the jurisdictional claim is raised, be related to the activities of the defendant which give rise to the in personam jurisdiction." Hankins v. Somers, 39 N.C.App. 617, 621 , 251 S.E.2d 640, 643 (1979)(quoting Munchak Corp. v. Riko Enterprises, Inc., 368 F.Supp. 1366, 1372 (M.D.N.C.1973)); see also, ETR Corporation v. Wilson Welding Service, Inc., 96 N.C.App. 666 , 386 S.E.2d 766 (1990)(where this Court considered activities related and unrelated to the legal action in that case to determine whether a basis for in pers 2003Indeed, "there is no requirement that the cause of action, pursuant to which the jurisdictional claim is raised, be related to the activities of the defendant which give rise to the in personam jurisdiction." Hankins v. Somers, 39 N.C.App. 617, 621 , 251 S.E.2d 640, 643 (1979)(quoting Munchak Corp. v. Riko Enterprises, Inc., 368 F.Supp. 1366, 1372 (M.D.N.C.1973)); see also, ETR Corporation v. Wilson Welding Service, Inc., 96 N.C.App. 666 , 386 S.E.2d 766 (1990)(where this Court considered activities related and unrelated to the legal action in that case to determine whether a basis for in pers | 1 | 1 |
ETR CORP. v. Wilson Welding Service, Inc.green2 sentences2003Indeed, "there is no requirement that the cause of action, pursuant to which the jurisdictional claim is raised, be related to the activities of the defendant which give rise to the in personam jurisdiction." Hankins v. Somers, 39 N.C.App. 617, 621 , 251 S.E.2d 640, 643 (1979)(quoting Munchak Corp. v. Riko Enterprises, Inc., 368 F.Supp. 1366, 1372 (M.D.N.C.1973)); see also, ETR Corporation v. Wilson Welding Service, Inc., 96 N.C.App. 666 , 386 S.E.2d 766 (1990)(where this Court considered activities related and unrelated to the legal action in that case to determine whether a basis for in pers 2003Indeed, "there is no requirement that the cause of action, pursuant to which the jurisdictional claim is raised, be related to the activities of the defendant which give rise to the in personam jurisdiction." Hankins v. Somers, 39 N.C.App. 617, 621 , 251 S.E.2d 640, 643 (1979)(quoting Munchak Corp. v. Riko Enterprises, Inc., 368 F.Supp. 1366, 1372 (M.D.N.C.1973)); see also, ETR Corporation v. Wilson Welding Service, Inc., 96 N.C.App. 666 , 386 S.E.2d 766 (1990)(where this Court considered activities related and unrelated to the legal action in that case to determine whether a basis for in pers | 1 | 1 |
State v. Looneygreen2 sentences1981After a lengthy analysis of the case law in other jurisdictions indicating a trend in favor of trial judges having discretionary power to compel such an examination [1] , the *582 Looney court said that "[i]n our opinion, the possible benefits to an innocent defendant, flowing from such a court ordered examination of the witness, are outweighed by the resulting invasion of the witness' right to privacy...." 294 N.C. at 28 , 240 S.E.2d at 627 . 1981After a lengthy analysis of the case law in other jurisdictions indicating a trend in favor of trial judges having discretionary power to compel such an examination [1] , the *582 Looney court said that "[i]n our opinion, the possible benefits to an innocent defendant, flowing from such a court ordered examination of the witness, are outweighed by the resulting invasion of the witness' right to privacy...." 294 N.C. at 28 , 240 S.E.2d at 627 . | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Marriott Financial Services, Inc. v. Capitol Funds, Inc.
green
2 sentences2017Id. at 127 , 217 S.E.2d at 555 . 2017Id. at 127 , 217 S.E.2d at 555 . | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Holcomb v. Iona College
green
2 sentences2010In Holcomb v. Iona College, 521 F.3d 130 (2d Cir. N.Y. 2008), the Second Circuit, after a lengthy analysis of relevant law, held that “an employer may violate Title VII if it takes action against an employee because of the employee’s association with a person of another race” even when the employer and employee are of the same race. 2010Id. at 138 . | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Crouse v. Mineo
green
2 sentences2009Crouse, 658 S.E.2d at 39 . 15 Id. at 42 . 2009Crouse, 658 S.E.2d at 39 . 15 Id. at 42 . | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Munchak Corporation v. Riko Enterprises, Inc.
green
1 sentence2003Indeed, "there is no requirement that the cause of action, pursuant to which the jurisdictional claim is raised, be related to the activities of the defendant which give rise to the in personam jurisdiction." Hankins v. Somers, 39 N.C.App. 617, 621 , 251 S.E.2d 640, 643 (1979)(quoting Munchak Corp. v. Riko Enterprises, Inc., 368 F.Supp. 1366, 1372 (M.D.N.C.1973)); see also, ETR Corporation v. Wilson Welding Service, Inc., 96 N.C.App. 666 , 386 S.E.2d 766 (1990)(where this Court considered activities related and unrelated to the legal action in that case to determine whether a basis for in pers | 1 | 2003–2003 |
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.