green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
3.9 score
G Cite
cited 2× by 1 distinct case, last quoted 2000 ·
…erroneous judgments may be corrected only by appeal, and a motion under cannot be used as a substitute for appellate review.
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 1990 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1990
2008
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "but see"
Suarez v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools
(2×)
But cf. Phillips v. Winston-Salem Forsyth County Bd. of Educ., 117 N.C.App. 274, 277, 450 S.E.2d 753, 756 (1994), disc. rev. den., 340 N.C. 115 , 456 S.E.2d 318 (1995). "[Wjhen defamatory words are spoken with the intent that the words be reduced to writing (or with television, broadcast), and the words are in fact written (broadcast), the publication is both slander and libel.” Id. at 278, 450 S.E.2d at 756 , quoting Clark v. Brown, 99 N.C.App. 255, 261 , 393 S.E.2d 134, 137 , disc. rev. den., 327 N.C. 426 , 395 S.E.2d 675 (1990). 2 .
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Ice v. Ice
(2×)
erroneous judgments may be corrected only by appeal, and a motion under cannot be used as a substitute for appellate review.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Artistic S. Inc. v. Lund
Id. at 432, S.E.2d at 217 (citing 2000 Watermark, 784 F.2d at 1185 ). {35} The Fourth Circuit has explained the rationale supporting the rule as a recognition that while “[c]ontract law permits the parties to negotiate the allocation of risk[,] . . . [n]o such freedom is available under tort law, which assigns risk as a matter of law.” 2000 Watermark, 784 F.2d at 1185–86.
discussed
Cited "see"
Coker v. DaimlerChrysler Corp.
See Chicopee, Inc. v. Sims Metal Works, Inc., 98 N.C.App. 423 , 391 S.E.2d 211 , disc. review denied, 327 N.C. 426 , 395 S.E.2d 674 (1990) (adopting the doctrine and applying it to claims for negligence); Wilson v. Dryvit Systems, Inc., 206 F.Supp.2d 749 (E.D.N.C. 2002) (declining to apply the doctrine to claims for fraud); Canady v. Mann, 107 N.C.App. 252 , 419 S.E.2d 597 (1992) (holding that the economic losses were recoverable when plaintiff was fraudulently induced to purchase a worthless piece of land).
discussed
Cited "see"
Sidney v. Allen
(2×)
See Clark v. Brown, 99 N.C.App. 255, 260 , 393 S.E.2d 134, 136-37 , disc. rev. denied, 327 N.C. 426 , 395 S.E.2d 675 (1990).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Garrison Ex Rel. Chavis v. Barnes
Id.; see also Chicopee Inc. v. Sims Metal Works, 98 N.C.App. 423, 431 , 391 S.E.2d 211, 216 (because Rule 60 motion was inappropriate vehicle to review allegedly erroneous judgment, we did not consider disposition of plaintiff's Rule 60 motion), disc. rev. denied, 327 N.C. 426 , 395 S.E.2d 674 (1990).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Robert W. CLARK
v.
Joseph G. BROWN.
v.
Joseph G. BROWN.
317P90.
Supreme Court of North Carolina.
Aug 29, 1990.
Cited by 35 opinions | Published
Citer courts: Court of Appeals of North Caro… (2)
Norma S. Harrell, Asst. Atty. Gen. for defendant.
Edward Connette, Charlotte, for plaintiff.
ORDER
Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant for Writ of Supersedeas and Temporary Stay of the judgment of the Court of Appeals, in this matter, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:
[*676] "Stay dissolved, supersedeas denied. By order of the Court in conference, this the 29th day of August 1990."
Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:
"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 29th day of August 1990."