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 1930–2017 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 |
|---|---|---|
Kayann Properties, Inc. v. Coxgreen2 sentences2017Kayann Props. , 268 N.C. at 20 , 149 S.E.2d at 557 (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). 2017Kayann Props. , 268 N.C. at 20 , 149 S.E.2d at 557 (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). | 2 | 3 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in North Carolina. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Chadwick v. . Blades
green
2 sentences2010Thus, it has been said that “[ejquity will not award partition at the suit of one in violation of his own agreement, or in violation of a condition or restriction imposed on the estate by one through whom he claims.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). 1975“Equity will not award partition at the suit of one in violation of his own agreement, or in violation of a condition or restriction imposed on the estate by one through whom he claims.” Chadwick v. Blades, 210 N.C. 609, 612 , 188 S.E. 198 (1936). | 3 | 1966–2010 |
Hill v. Reno
green
1 sentence1930Ency. of Law, 2 ed., 1158; Hill v. Reno, 112 Ill., 154 ; Ingraham v. Mariner, 194 ibid., 269; Brown v. Brown, 43 Ind., 474 ; Hunt v. Wright, 47 N. H., 396); nor is such a condition or re- *448 strictiou in tbe instrument conveying tbe estate invalid as repugnant to tbe estate granted, or as against public policy. | 1 | 1930–1930 |
Drake v. Merkle
neutral
1 sentence1930Speaking to the subject in Dee v. Dee, 212 Ill., 338 , Scott, J., delivering the opinion of the Court, said: “The general rule is that an adult tenant in common may demand partition as a matter of right (Martin v. Martin, 170 Ill., 639 ); and the fact that he is a remainderman and that the particular estate has not expired is not a valid objection (Drake v. Merkle, 153 Ill., 318 ); hut equity will not award partition at the suit of one in violation of his own agreement or in violation of a condition or restriction imposed upon the estate by one through whom he claims (21 Am. & Eng. | 1 | 1930–1930 |
Martin v. Martin
neutral
1 sentence1930Speaking to the subject in Dee v. Dee, 212 Ill., 338 , Scott, J., delivering the opinion of the Court, said: “The general rule is that an adult tenant in common may demand partition as a matter of right (Martin v. Martin, 170 Ill., 639 ); and the fact that he is a remainderman and that the particular estate has not expired is not a valid objection (Drake v. Merkle, 153 Ill., 318 ); hut equity will not award partition at the suit of one in violation of his own agreement or in violation of a condition or restriction imposed upon the estate by one through whom he claims (21 Am. & Eng. | 1 | 1930–1930 |
Dee v. Dee
green
1 sentence1930Speaking to the subject in Dee v. Dee, 212 Ill., 338 , Scott, J., delivering the opinion of the Court, said: “The general rule is that an adult tenant in common may demand partition as a matter of right (Martin v. Martin, 170 Ill., 639 ); and the fact that he is a remainderman and that the particular estate has not expired is not a valid objection (Drake v. Merkle, 153 Ill., 318 ); hut equity will not award partition at the suit of one in violation of his own agreement or in violation of a condition or restriction imposed upon the estate by one through whom he claims (21 Am. & Eng. | 1 | 1930–1930 |
Brown v. Brown
neutral
1 sentence1930Ency. of Law, 2 ed., 1158; Hill v. Reno, 112 Ill., 154 ; Ingraham v. Mariner, 194 ibid., 269; Brown v. Brown, 43 Ind., 474 ; Hunt v. Wright, 47 N. H., 396); nor is such a condition or re- *448 strictiou in tbe instrument conveying tbe estate invalid as repugnant to tbe estate granted, or as against public policy. | 1 | 1930–1930 |
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.