Couch v. Private Diagnostic Clinic, 563 S.E.2d 562 (N.C. 2002). · Go Syfert
Couch v. Private Diagnostic Clinic, 563 S.E.2d 562 (N.C. 2002). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“breach of contract is the proper claim for a wrongful discharged employee who is employed for a definite term or an employee subject to discharge only for 'just cause.”
35 citation events (35 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Franco v. Liposcience, Inc. (ncctapp, 2009-05-19)
Treatment trajectory · 2002 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2002 2014 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers. How cited ↗
examined Cited as authority (quoted) Franco v. Liposcience, Inc. (2×)
N.C. Ct. App. · 2009 · quote attribution · 2 verbatim quotes · confidence low
breach of contract is the proper claim for a wrongful discharged employee who is employed for a definite term or an employee subject to discharge only for 'just cause.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Bowman v. Alan Vester Ford Lincoln Mercury
N.C. Ct. App. · 2002 · confidence medium
We upheld the lower court’s determination that trial courts have “inherent authority to sanction attorneys for misconduct, which sanctions may include the imposition of attorney’s fees, irrespective of statutory authority,” and we explained that “this inherent authority encompasses not only the power but also the duty to discipline attorneys, who are officers of the court, for unprofessional conduct.” Id. at 665-66, 554 S.E.2d at 362 (internal quotation marks omitted).
discussed Cited "see" Hill v. Medford
N.C. Ct. App. · 2003 · signal: see · confidence high
See Doyle v. Asheville Orthopaedic Assocs., P.A., 148 N.C.App. 173, 174 , 557 S.E.2d 577, 577 (2001) (noting in context of claim by contractual employee that contractual employee limited to breach of contract and tort of wrongful discharge available only to at-will employee), disc. review denied, 355 N.C. 348 , 562 S.E.2d 278 (2002); Trexler v. Norfolk S. Ry.
discussed Cited "see" Faircloth v. Duke University
M.D.N.C. · 2003 · signal: see · confidence high
See Doyle v. Asheville Orthopaedic Associates, 148 N.C.App. 173, 174 , 557 S.E.2d 577, 577 (2001), rev. denied, 355 N.C. 348 , 562 S.E.2d 278 (2002); Graham v. Hardee’s Food Systems, Inc., 121 N.C.App. 382, 385 , 465 S.E.2d 558, 560 (1996).
discussed Cited "see" Phillips v. a Triangle Women's Health Clinic, Inc.
N.C. Ct. App. · 2002 · signal: see · confidence high
See Hylton v. Koontz, 138 N.C.App. 511 , 530 S.E.2d 108 , disc. review denied, 353 N.C. 264 , 546 S.E.2d 98 (2000), rehearing dismissed, 353 N.C. 373 , 547 S.E.2d 10 (2001). [3] Alternatively, plaintiff argues compliance with Rule 9(j) is irrelevant to her medical malpractice claim because this Court held in Anderson v. Assimos, 146 N.C.App. 339 , 553 S.E.2d 63 (2001), appeal granted, 355 N.C. 348 , 561 S.E.2d 498 (2002), that Rule 9(j) was unconstitutional.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Whitt v. Harris Teeter, Inc.
N.C. Ct. App. · 2004 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Doyle v. Asheville Orthopaedic Assocs., P.A., 148 N.C.App. 173, 177 , 557 S.E.2d 577, 579 (2001) ("We recognize the viability of [the plaintiff's claim for constructive discharge] in the context of interpreting whether constructive termination by her employer triggered the termination payment provision of the employment contract."), disc. review denied, 355 N.C. 348 , 562 S.E.2d 278 (2002); Russell, 129 N.C.App. at 524 , 500 S.E.2d at 731 -32 *157 (affirming, although not directly addressing, jury verdict for plaintiff who brought suit alleging wrongful constructive discharge in vio…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Couch
v.
Private Diagnostic Clinic
661P01.
Supreme Court of North Carolina.
Apr 4, 2002.
563 S.E.2d 562

Motion by appellee (Trial Court) to dismiss the appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question allowed 4 April 2002. Petition by appellant (Maria Sperando) for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 denied 4 April 2002. Conditional petition by appellee (Trial Court) for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 dismissed as moot 4 April 2002.