6 North Carolina opinions name it 1 courts 2007–2025 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Viar v. North Carolina Department of Transportationgreen2 sentences2007Dep't of Transp., 359 N.C. 400, 402 , 610 S.E.2d 360, 361 (2005) ("[i]t is not the role of the appellate courts . . . to create an appeal. . . . ") Petitioners' brief posits two potential grounds to support the termination order. 2007Dep't of Transp., 359 N.C. 400, 402 , 610 S.E.2d 360, 361 (2005) ("[i]t is not the role of the appellate courts . . . to create an appeal. . . . ") Petitioners' brief posits two potential grounds to support the termination order. | 2 | 2 |
NCJS, LLC v. City of Charlotte, Corp.green2 sentences2025Here, “[b]ecause the appellate record permits us to meaningfully review” Petitioners’ issue, “we elect not to remand this case to the superior court[.]” NCJS v. City of Charlotte, 255 N.C. 2025App. 72, 77 , 803 S.E.2d 684, 689 (2017); see also, e.g., Morris Communs. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Littlegreen2 sentences2009They asserted neither a property nor a possessory interest in the automobile, nor an interest in the property seized. . . . [Petitioners’ claim is one which would fail' even in an analogous situation in a dwelling place, since they made no showing that they had any legitimate expectation of privacy in the glove compartment or area under the seat of the car in which they were merely passengers”); see also State v. Little, 27 N.C. 2009App. 54, 56 , 218 S.E.2d 184, 186 (holding that where a defendant possesses no interest in the property searched, “he lacks standing to contest [the owner’s] consent to a search producing evidence that implicate[s] him”) (citations omitted), cert. denied, 288 N.C. 512 , 219 S.E.2d 347 (1975). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Co. v. Bourlon
green
1 sentence2014Bourlon, 172 N.C. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
In Re JT
green
1 sentence2010The trial court further found that, in In re J.T., 363 N.C. 1 , 672 S.E.2d 17 , (2009), the North Carolina Supreme Court "clarified the status of the law, that failure to serve the subject juvenile in a termination case may have implications for personal jurisdiction, but does not deprive a Court of subject matter jurisdiction." Based upon In re J.T., the trial court in this case concluded that it had subject matter jurisdiction to hear Petitioners' motion; that Petitioners' motion should be granted; and that the 2007 order should be affirmed. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
In re J.T. (I)
green
1 sentence2010The trial court further found that, in In re J.T., 363 N.C. 1 , 672 S.E.2d 17 , (2009), the North Carolina Supreme Court "clarified the status of the law, that failure to serve the subject juvenile in a termination case may have implications for personal jurisdiction, but does not deprive a Court of subject matter jurisdiction." Based upon In re J.T., the trial court in this case concluded that it had subject matter jurisdiction to hear Petitioners' motion; that Petitioners' motion should be granted; and that the 2007 order should be affirmed. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
State v. Neely
neutral
2 sentences2009App. 54, 56 , 218 S.E.2d 184, 186 (holding that where a defendant possesses no interest in the property searched, “he lacks standing to contest [the owner’s] consent to a search producing evidence that implicate[s] him”) (citations omitted), cert. denied, 288 N.C. 512 , 219 S.E.2d 347 (1975). 2009App. 54, 56 , 218 S.E.2d 184, 186 (holding that where a defendant possesses no interest in the property searched, “he lacks standing to contest [the owner’s] consent to a search producing evidence that implicate[s] him”) (citations omitted), cert. denied, 288 N.C. 512 , 219 S.E.2d 347 (1975). | 1 | 2009–2009 |
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.