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 1900–2010 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 |
|---|---|---|
Lambeth v. Town of Kure Beachgreen1 sentence2010App. 349, 352 , 578 S.E.2d 688, 690 (2003) (holding that an appeal was not moot because the “amendment to the ordinance at bar... did not give [the petitioner] the relief *183 sought” so that the “[petitioner's claim and injury remain viable”). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Zageir v. Southern Express Co.
neutral
2 sentences1923"Where the owner of an automobile is driving her car upon the streets of a city in violation of an ordinance requiring a license, and the machine is injured by the backing of an express wagon onto the street in such negligent manner as to damage the car, without contributory negligence on the owner's part and which the care of a skillful chauffeur would not have avoided, it is held , that the violation of the ordinance will not bar the plaintiff of recovery in her action for damages, there being no causal connection between the unlawful act and the damages sustained." Zageir v. Express Co. , 1 1923“Where the owner of an automobile is driving her car upon the streets of a city in .violation of- an ordinance requiring a license, and the machine is injured by the backing of an express wagon onto the street in such negligent manner as to damage the car, without contributory negligence on the owner’s part and which the care of a skillful chauffeur would not have avoided, it is held, that the violation of the ordinance will not bar the plaintiff of recovery in her action for damages, there being no causal connection between the unlawful.act and the damages sustained.” Zageir v. Express Co., 1 | 2 | 1923–1923 |
Andrews v. Alamance County
green
2 sentences2009County contends that plaintiff does not have standing because it “ha[s] not alleged that the County has sought to apply the Ordinance under challenge to the Plaintiff[] or that the Plaintiff[] ha[s] applied for or been denied anything related to use of their property.” County argues that the instant case is controlled by Andrews v. Alamance County, 132 N.C. 2009App. 811 , 513 S.E.2d 349 (1999). | 1 | 2009–2009 |
State v. Brewer
green
2 sentences1975State v. Atlas, 283 N.C. 165 , 195 S.E.2d 496 (1973); State v. Brewer, 258 N.C. 533 , 129 S.E.2d 262 (1963). 1975State v. Atlas, 283 N.C. 165 , 195 S.E.2d 496 (1973); State v. Brewer, 258 N.C. 533 , 129 S.E.2d 262 (1963). | 1 | 1975–1975 |
State v. Atlas
neutral
2 sentences1975State v. Atlas, 283 N.C. 165 , 195 S.E.2d 496 (1973); State v. Brewer, 258 N.C. 533 , 129 S.E.2d 262 (1963). 1975State v. Atlas, 283 N.C. 165 , 195 S.E.2d 496 (1973); State v. Brewer, 258 N.C. 533 , 129 S.E.2d 262 (1963). | 1 | 1975–1975 |
State v. Crenshaw
neutral
1 sentence1900The language is as stated in the case on appeal “a. fine of not more than fifty dollars.” That was the exact language used in the ordinance of the town of Durham as appears in the case of State v. Crenshaw, 94 N. C., 877 . | 1 | 1900–1900 |
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.