Stephenson defendant (North Carolina) · Go Syfert
← North Carolina issues

Stephenson defendant in North Carolina

6 North Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1984–2022 2 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.

Followed or applied (1)

CaseFollowedCited
Stephenson v. Bartlettgreen
nc · 2002 · cited in 3 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2003–2022
2 sentences

2022Indeed, after the Stephenson defendants initially removed the case to federal district court, the district court remanded the case, stating that “the redistricting process was a matter primarily within the province of the states, that plaintiffs have challenged the 2001 legislative redistricting plans solely on the basis of state constitutional provisions, that the complaint ‘only raises issues of state law,’ and that defendants’ removal of th[e] suit from state court was inappropriate.” Stephenson, 355 N.C. at 358.

2022Further, when the Stephenson defendants “subsequently filed a notice of appeal from the District Court’s order with the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit[,] . . . [t]he Fourth Circuit denied defendants’ motion to stay the District Court’s order of remand.” Id. ¶ 216 Here, as in Stephenson, plaintiffs’ claims arise under the same provisions of the North Carolina Constitution implicated in Stephenson—namely article I, sections 3 and 5 and article II, sections 3 and 5.

23

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in North Carolina. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (3)

CaseCitedYears
Stephenson v. Bartlett green
nc · 2003
2 sentences

2004Stephenson v. Bartlett, 357 N.C. 301 , 582 S.E.2d 247 (2003) (Stephenson II).

2004Stephenson v. Bartlett, 357 N.C. 301 , 582 S.E.2d 247 (2003) (Stephenson II).

22004–2004
Fliehr v. Fliehr green
ncctapp · 1982
2 sentences

1984App. 465 , 289 S.E. 2d 105 (1982), we expanded the Stephenson rule to prohibit an appeal from an order for child support, not designated pendente lite, but entered in conjunction with an order for alimony pendente lite.

1984App. 465 , 289 S.E. 2d 105 (1982), we expanded the Stephenson rule to prohibit an appeal from an order for child support, not designated pendente lite, but entered in conjunction with an order for alimony pendente lite.

11984–1984
Dixon v. Dixon green
ncctapp · 1983
2 sentences

1984In Dixon v. Dixon, 62 N.C.

1984In Dixon v. Dixon, 62 N.C.

11984–1984

Statutes the citing opinions construe

NC § N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-267.1 (4) NC § N.C. Gen. Stat. § 120-2.4 (4) NC § N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7A-27 (3)

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.

Where else courts name it

OH 34 (1989–2026) NC 6 (1984–2022) TN 3 (2006–2016) TX 3 (2003–2015) DE 2 (2020–2021) MO 2 (1978–2007) IN 2 (2007–2009)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check