NC General Statutes

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 12-2 (2026)

Repeal of statute not to affect actions

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NCLEGncleg.gov (official) JustiaChapter 12 CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

The repeal of a statute shall not affect any action brought before the repeal, for any forfeitures incurred, or for the recovery of any rights accruing under such statute. (1830, c. 44; R.C., c. 108, s. 1; 1879, c. 163; 1881, c. 48; Code, s. 3764; Rev., s. 2830; C.S., s. 3948.)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 6 cases, 1975–2004 · leading case: Stephenson v. Bartlett, 562 S.E.2d 377 (N.C. 2002).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Stephenson v. Bartlett, 562 S.E.2d 377 (N.C. 2002). · cites it 2× “1995) (noting that although the provisions of the First Amendment appear absolute, they are subject to a balancing of interests). In reality, an inflexible application of the WCP is no longer attainable because of the operation of the provisions of the VRA and the federal…”

State v. Petersilie, 432 S.E.2d 832 (N.C. 1993). · cites it 2× “Tribe, American Constitutional Law, § 12-2 (2d ed. 1988); Melville B. Nimmer, Nimmer on Freedom of Speech; A Treatise on the First Amendment § 2.”

State Ex Rel. Utils. Comm'n v. Carolina Util. Customers Ass'n, 592 S.E.2d 221 (N.C. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 8× “” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 12-2 (2003). No statute was repealed by the enactment of Section 62-133.”

Tate v. NationsBanc Mortg. Corp. (In Re Tate), 253 B.R. 653 (Bankr. W.D.N.C. 2000). “White, Bankruptcy Practitioner Series § 12-2 (1992). In this case, the Plaintiffs’ first three claims for relief seek partial disallowance of NationsBanc’s claim on the grounds that the Attorney Fee is improper under § 506(b).”

Strader v. Sunstates Corp., 500 S.E.2d 752 (N.C. Ct. App. 1998). “We find that the trial court correctly calculated and awarded contract damages. A lease is a contract which contains both property rights and contractual rights.”

Billings v. Joseph Harris Co., Inc., 220 S.E.2d 361 (N.C. Ct. App. 1975). “” Determination of conspicuousness is a question of law for the court. Judge Wood determined that defendant’s disclaimer and limitation clause were conspicuous; we think his determination was correct and, after examining the record and exhibits, we agree that the proofs…”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.