6 North Carolina opinions name it 3 courts 1967–2017 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 |
|---|---|---|
Cox v. Coxgreen2 sentences2005Gen.Stat. § 5A-15 "provides for a plenary hearing for indirect contempt (and for certain direct contempt), and establishes, inter alia, requirements of notice and a hearing." Cox v. Cox, 92 N.C.App. 702, 706 , 376 S.E.2d 13, 16 (1989) (emphasis added). 2005Gen.Stat. § 5A-15 "provides for a plenary hearing for indirect contempt (and for certain direct contempt), and establishes, inter alia, requirements of notice and a hearing." Cox v. Cox, 92 N.C.App. 702, 706 , 376 S.E.2d 13, 16 (1989) (emphasis added). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Weinberger v. UOP, Inc.
green
1 sentence2017Weinberger, 457 A.2d at 711 . 140. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Sciolino v. TD Waterhouse Investor Services, Inc.
green
2 sentences2007After having conducted a plenary hearing, the court finds that the existence of an agreement to arbitrate has not been demonstrated.” Id. at 643-44 , 562 S.E.2d at 65 . 2007After having conducted a plenary hearing, the court finds that the existence of an agreement to arbitrate has not been demonstrated.” Id. at 643-44 , 562 S.E.2d at 65 . | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Robert A. PETTY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. the TIMKEN CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee
green
1 sentence2005Petty v. Timken Corp., 849 F.2d 130 , 132 (4th Cir.1988). | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Glover v. North Carolina
green
1 sentence1968Bobbitt, then a judge of the Superior Court holding the Courts of Buncombe County; that as a result of this hearing an order of the superior court was entered making full findings of fact and denying petitioner relief; that petition for certiorari was filed with the Supreme Court of North Carolina and denied by that Court; that a further petition for certiorari was filed with the Supreme Court of the United States and denied by that Court on 7 June 1954, 347 U.S. 1021 , 74 S. Ct. 878 , 98 L. | 1 | 1968–1968 |
Johnson v. Ellis
green
1 sentence1968Bobbitt, then a judge of the Superior Court holding the Courts of Buncombe County; that as a result of this hearing an order of the superior court was entered making full findings of fact and denying petitioner relief; that petition for certiorari was filed with the Supreme Court of North Carolina and denied by that Court; that a further petition for certiorari was filed with the Supreme Court of the United States and denied by that Court on 7 June 1954, 347 U.S. 1021 , 74 S. Ct. 878 , 98 L. | 1 | 1968–1968 |
Logner v. State of North Carolina
green
1 sentence1967Logner v. State of North Carolina, 260 F. Supp. 970 . | 1 | 1967–1967 |
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.