In the Matter of Yocum, 597 S.E.2d 674 (N.C. 2003). · Go Syfert
Search
In the Matter of Yocum, 597 S.E.2d 674 (N.C. 2003). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“e are concerned that trial courts asserting sweeping pre-trial 'gatekeeping' authority under daubert may unnecessarily encroach upon the constitutionally-mandated function of the jury to decide issues of fact and to assess the weight of the evidence.”
766 citation events (766 in the last 25 years) across 7 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: State v. McGrady (ncctapp, 2014-01-21)
Treatment trajectory · 2003 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2003 2014 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) State v. McGrady (2×) also: Cited as authority (rule)
N.C. Ct. App. · 2014 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
north carolina 102 is not, nor has it ever been, a daubert jurisdiction.
examined Cited as authority (verbatim quote) State v. Norman (6×) also: Cited as authority (rule)
N.C. Ct. App. · 2011 · signal: see · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
e discern no qualitative difference between credentials based on formal, academic training and those acquired through practical experience.
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Wiggs v. Peedin
N.C. Ct. App. · 2008 · signal: see also · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
in a motion for summary judgment, the evidence presented . . . must be viewed in a light most favorable to the non-moving party.
examined Cited as authority (verbatim quote) State v. Anderson (3×) also: Cited as authority (rule), Cited "see"
N.C. Ct. App. · 2006 · signal: see · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
e are concerned that trial courts asserting sweeping pre-trial 'gatekeeping' authority under daubert may unnecessarily encroach upon the constitutionally-mandated function of the jury to decide issues of fact and to assess the weight of the evidence.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Dales v. Gardner-Webb Univ.
N.C. Ct. App. · 2026 · confidence medium
Howerton v. Arai Helmet, Ltd., 358 N.C. 440, 470 , 597 S.E.2d 674, 693 (2004).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Stein v. Hall (2×)
N.C. Ct. App. · 2026 · confidence medium
Howerton v. Arai Helmet, Ltd., 358 N.C. 440, 470, 597 S.E.2d 674, 693 (2004).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Osborne v. Yadkin Valley Econ. Dev. Dist. Inc.
N.C. Ct. App. · 2021 · confidence medium
App. 198, 202 , 651 S.E.2d 235, 238 (2007) (citing Howerton v. Arai Helmet, Ltd., 358 N.C. 440, 471 , 597 S.E.2d 674, 694 (2004)). ¶ 33 To survive a motion for summary judgment in a negligence case, the plaintiff must establish a prima facie case of negligence.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Osborne v. Yadkin Valley Econ. Dev. Dist. Inc.
N.C. Ct. App. · 2021 · confidence medium
App. 198, 202 , 651 S.E.2d 235, 238 (2007) (citing Howerton v. Arai Helmet, Ltd., 358 N.C. 440, 471 , 597 S.E.2d 674, 694 (2004)). ¶ 33 To survive a motion for summary judgment in a negligence case, the plaintiff must establish a prima facie case of negligence.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Dillon v. Stafford
N.C. Bus. Ct. · 2020 · confidence medium
In making this determination, “[t]he evidence must be considered ‘in a light most favorable to the non-moving party.’ ” McCutchen v. McCutchen, 360 N.C. 280, 286 , 624 S.E.2d 620, 625 (2006) (quoting Howerton v. Arai Helmet, Ltd., 358 N.C. 440, 470 , 597 S.E.2d 674, 693 (2004)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Rfactr, Inc. v. McDowell
N.C. Bus. Ct. · 2020 · confidence medium
In making this determination, “[t]he evidence must be considered ‘in a light most favorable to the non-moving party.’ ” McCutchen v. McCutchen, 360 N.C. 280, 286 , 624 S.E.2d 620, 625 (2006) (quoting Howerton v. Arai Helmet, Ltd., 358 N.C. 440, 470 , 597 S.E.2d 674, 693 (2004)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Bradshaw v. Maiden, 2020 Ncbc 60a
N.C. Bus. Ct. · 2020 · confidence medium
In making this determination, “[t]he evidence must be considered ‘in a light most favorable to the non-moving party.’ ” McCutchen v. McCutchen, 360 N.C. 280, 286 , 624 S.E.2d 620, 625 (2006) (quoting Howerton v. Arai Helmet, Ltd., 358 N.C. 440, 470 , 597 S.E.2d 674, 693 (2004).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Da Silva v. WakeMed
N.C. · 2020 · confidence medium
Rule 702(b) A. Standard of Review Generally, the trial court’s decision to allow or disqualify an expert “will not be reversed on appeal absent a showing of abuse of discretion.” State v. McGrady, 368 N.C. 880, 893 , 787 S.E.2d 1, 11 (2016) (quoting Howerton v. Arai Helmet, Ltd., 358 N.C. 440, 458 , 597 S.E.2d 674, 686 (2004)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Da Silva v. WakeMed
N.C. · 2020 · confidence medium
Rule 702(b) A. Standard of Review Generally, the trial court’s decision to allow or disqualify an expert “will not be reversed on appeal absent a showing of abuse of discretion.” State v. McGrady, 368 N.C. 880, 893 , 787 S.E.2d 1, 11 (2016) (quoting Howerton v. Arai Helmet, Ltd., 358 N.C. 440, 458 , 597 S.E.2d 674, 686 (2004)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) SciGrip, Inc. v. Osae
N.C. · 2020 · confidence medium
A trial court’s ruling concerning the admissibility of expert’s testimony “will not be reversed on appeal absent a showing of abuse of discretion.” State v. McGrady, 368 N.C. 880, 893 , 787 S.E.2d 1, 11 (2016) (citing Howerton v. Arai Helmet, Ltd., 358 N.C. 440, 458 , 597 S.E.2d 674, 686 (2004), superseded by statute, N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 702, 2011 N.C.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) SciGrip, Inc. v. Osae
N.C. · 2020 · confidence medium
A trial court’s ruling concerning the admissibility of an expert’s testimony “will not be reversed on appeal absent a showing of abuse of discretion.” State v. McGrady, 368 N.C. 880, 893 , 787 S.E.2d 1, 11 (2016) (quoting Howerton v. Arai Helmet, Ltd., 358 N.C. 440, 458 , 597 S.E.2d 674, 686 (2004), superseded by statute, N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 702, 2011 N.C.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Osborne
N.C. · 2019 · confidence medium
OSBORNE Opinion of the Court id. at 148, 694 S.E.2d at 747–48, the Court relied upon its decision in Howerton v. Arai Helmet, Ltd., 358 N.C. 440, 458 , 597 S.E.2d 674, 686 (2004), which “established three steps ‘for evaluating the admissibility of expert testimony’ ” pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 702, with those steps including whether “the expert’s proffered method of proof [is] sufficiently reliable as an area for expert testimony,” Ward, 364 N.C. at 140 , 694 S.E.2d at 742 (quoting Howerton, 358 N.C. at 458 , 597 S.E.2d at 686 ).
cited Cited as authority (rule) State v. Parks
N.C. Ct. App. · 2019 · confidence medium
McGrady, 368 N.C. at 886 , 787 S.E.2d at 6 -7 (quoting Howerton v. Arai Helmet, Ltd., 358 N.C. 440, 469 , 597 S.E.2d 674, 693 (2004).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Swint by and Through Brown v. Doe
N.C. Ct. App. · 2019 · confidence medium
Howerton v. Arai Helmet, Ltd., 358 N.C. 440, 470 , 597 S.E.2d 674, 693 (2004).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Vizant Techs., LLC v. Yrc Worldwide Inc.
N.C. Bus. Ct. · 2018 · confidence medium
A trial court’s decision as to whether an expert’s testimony meets Rule 702(a)’s requirements “will not be reversed on appeal absent a showing of abuse of discretion.” Id. at 893 , 787 S.E.2d at 11 (quoting Howerton v. Arai Helmet, Ltd., 358 N.C. 440, 458 , 597 S.E.2d 674, 686 (2004)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Dyer v. Roten
N.C. Ct. App. · 2018 · confidence medium
"Given such latitude, it follows that a trial court's ruling on ... the admissibility of an expert's opinion will not be reversed on appeal absent a showing of abuse of discretion." Howerton , 358 N.C. at 458 , 597 S.E.2d at 686 (citations omitted).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Barker
N.C. Ct. App. · 2017 · confidence medium
Standard of Review A trial court’s ruling regarding the admissibility of expert testimony “will not be reversed on appeal absent a showing of abuse of discretion.” State v. McGrady, 368 N.C. 880, 893 , 787 S.E.2d 1, 11 (2016) (citing Howerton v. Arai Helmet, Ltd., 358 N.C. 440, 458 , 597 S.E. 2d 674, 686 (2004)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Godwin
N.C. · 2017 · confidence medium
Moreover, our precedents continue to dictate that a trial court’s ruling on the admissibility of expert testimony *611 “will not be reversed on appeal absent a showing of abuse of discretion.” See id. at 893 , 787 S.E.2d at 11 (quoting Howerton v. Arai Helmet, Ltd., 358 N.C. 440, 458 , 597 S.E.2d 674, 686 (2004), superseded by statute, Act of June 17, 2011, ch. 283, sec. 1.3, 2011 N.C.
examined Cited as authority (rule) State v. McGrady (7×) also: Cited "see"
N.C. · 2016 · confidence medium
Our cases instead delineated “a three-step inquiry for evaluating the admissibility of expert testimony: (1) Is the expert’s proffered method of proof sufficiently reliable as an area for expert testimony? (2) Is the witness testifying at trial qualified as an expert in that area of testimony? (3) Is the expert’s testimony relevant?” Id. at 458 , 597 S.E.2d at 686 (citations omitted).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) CB Windswept
N.C. Ct. App. · 2015 · confidence medium
App. __ , __ , 757 S.E.2d 302, 304 (quoting Howerton v. Arai Helmet, Ltd., 358 N.C. 440, 467 , 597 S.E.2d 674, 692 (2004) (internal citation omitted)), disc. review denied, 367 N.C. 519 , 758 S.E.2d 874 (2014).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Bost v. Heller
N.C. Ct. App. · 2015 · confidence medium
“In a motion for summary judgment, the evidence presented to the trial court must be . . . viewed in a light most favorable to the non-moving party.” Howerton v. Arai Helmet, Ltd., 358 N.C. 440, 467 , 597 S.E.2d 674, 692 (2004) (citation omitted).
examined Cited as authority (rule) State v. McGraw (5×) also: Cited "see"
N.C. Ct. App. · 2015 · confidence medium
Howerton, 358 N.C. at 458 , 597 S.E.2d at 686 (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Point S. Props.
N.C. Ct. App. · 2015 · confidence medium
App. __ , __ , 757 S.E.2d 302, 304 (quoting Howerton v. Arai Helmet, Ltd., 358 N.C. 440, 467 , 597 S.E.2d 674, 692 (2004) (internal citation omitted)), disc. review denied, 367 N.C. 519 , 758 S.E.2d 874 (2014).
cited Cited as authority (rule) The N. Carolina State Bar v. Britt
N.C. Ct. App. · 2015 · confidence medium
Howerton v. Arai Helmet, Ltd., 358 N.C. 440, 458 , 597 S.E.2d 674, 686 (2004) (citations and quotation marks omitted).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Young v. Bailey
N.C. Ct. App. · 2015 · confidence medium
App. __, __, 757 S.E.2d 302, 304 (quoting Howerton v. Arai Helmet, Ltd., 358 N.C. 440, 467 , 597 S.E.2d 674, 692 (2004) (internal citation omitted)), disc. review denied, __ N.C. __, 758 S.E.2d 874 (2014).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Falk v. Fannie Mae
N.C. · 2014 · confidence medium
Howerton v. Arai Helmet, Ltd., 358 N.C. 440, 470 , 597 S.E.2d 674, 693 (2004) (citation omitted).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Borders (2×)
N.C. Ct. App. · 2014 · confidence medium
Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 702 (2009). 4 The admissibility of the expert testimony in the present case is evaluated under the three-step inquiry, outlined by our Supreme Court in Howerton v. Arai Helmet, Ltd., 358 N.C. 440, 458 , 597 S.E.2d 674, 686 (2004): “(1) Is the expert’s proffered method of proof sufficiently reliable as an area for expert testimony? (2) Is the witness testifying at trial qualified as an expert in that area of testimony? (3) Is the expert’s testimony relevant?” Id. (citations omitted).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Brown (2×)
N.C. Ct. App. · 2014 · confidence medium
Howerton v. Arai Helmet, Ltd., 358 N.C. 440, 458 , 597 S.E.2d 674, 686 (2004) (citations and quotation marks omitted).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Dykes v. Long
N.C. Ct. App. · 2014 · confidence medium
“In a motion for summary judgment, the evidence presented to the trial court must be . . . viewed in a light most favorable to the non-moving party.” Howerton v. Arai Helmet, Ltd., 358 N.C. 440, 467 , 597 S.E.2d 674, 692 (2004).
cited Cited as authority (rule) State v. West
N.C. Ct. App. · 2014 · confidence medium
Howerton v. Arai Helmet, Ltd., 358 N.C. 440, 459 , 597 S.E.2d 674, 687 (2004).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Dallaire v. Bank of America, N.A.
N.C. · 2014 · confidence medium
Howerton v. Arai Helmet, Ltd., 358 N.C. 440, 470 , 597 S.E.2d 674, 693 (2004) (citation omitted).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Patmore v. Town Of Chapel Hill
N.C. Ct. App. · 2014 · confidence medium
Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 56(a), summary judgment is properly entered “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that any party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” “In a motion for summary judgment, the evidence presented to the trial court must be admissible at trial, N.C.G.S. § 1A-1, Rule 56(e) (2003), and must be viewed in a fight most favorable to the non-moving party.” Howerton v. Arai Helmet, Ltd., 358 N.C. 440, 467 , 597 S.E.2d 674,…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Red Fox Future, LLC v. Holbrooks
N.C. Bus. Ct. · 2014 · confidence medium
Evid. 702. {74} The North Carolina Supreme Court outlined “a three-step inquiry for evaluating the admissibility of expert testimony: (1) Is the expert’s proffered method of proof sufficiently reliable as an area for expert testimony? (2) Is the witness testifying at trial qualified as an expert in that area of testimony? (3) Is the expert’s testimony relevant?” Howerton v. Arai Helmet, Ltd., 358 N.C. 440, 458 , 597 S.E.2d 674, 686 (2004) (citation omitted).
cited Cited as authority (rule) In re A.N.B.
N.C. Ct. App. · 2014 · confidence medium
Howerton v. Arai Helmet, Ltd., 358 N.C. 440, 458 , 597 S.E.2d 674, 686 (2004) (citations omitted).
examined Cited as authority (rule) Webb v. Wake Forest University Baptist Medical Center (4×)
N.C. Ct. App. · 2014 · confidence medium
“Where there are genuine, conflicting issues of material fact, the motion for summary judgment must be denied so that such disputes may be properly resolved by the jury as the trier of fact.” Howerton v. Arai Helmet, Ltd., 358 N.C. 440, 468 , 597 S.E.2d 674, 692 (2004).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Clements v. Clements
N.C. Ct. App. · 2014 · confidence medium
State v. Ward, 364 N.C. 133, 139 , 694 S.E.2d 738, 742 (2010) (citing Howerton v. Arai Helmet, Ltd., 358 N.C. 440, 458 , 597 S.E.2d 674, 686 (2004)).
examined Cited as authority (rule) State v. Quick (3×) also: Cited "see"
N.C. Ct. App. · 2014 · confidence medium
To satisfy the first prong of the Howerton test, whether the expert’s proffered method of proof is sufficiently reliable, “a court may look to testimony by an expert specifically relating to the reliability, may take judicial notice, or may -8- use a combination of the two.” Howerton, 358 N.C. at 459 , 597 S.E.2d at 687 (quotation marks omitted).
cited Cited as authority (rule) North Carolina Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance v. Paschal
N.C. Ct. App. · 2014 · confidence medium
Howerton v. Arai Helmet, Ltd., 358 N.C. 440, 470 , 597 S.E.2d 674, 693 (2004) (citations omitted).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Wise v. Alcoa, Inc.
N.C. Ct. App. · 2013 · confidence medium
Howerton v. Arai Helmet, Ltd., 358 N.C. 440, 458 , 597 S.E.2d 674, 686 (2004) (citing State v. Goode, 341 N.C. 513, 527-529 , 461 S.E.2d 631, 639-641 (1995)).
examined Cited as authority (rule) State v. Cooper (10×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
N.C. Ct. App. · 2013 · confidence medium
Howerton v. Arai Helmet, Ltd., 358 N.C. 440, 458 , 597 S.E.2d 674, 686 (2004) (citation omitted).
examined Cited as authority (rule) Bumpers v. Cmty. Bank of N. Va. (8×)
N.C. · 2013 · confidence medium
Howerton v. Arai Helmet, Ltd., 358 N.C. 440, 470 , 597 S.E.2d 674, 693 (2004) (citation omitted).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Perry
N.C. Ct. App. · 2013 · confidence medium
While Defendant is correct in reminding us that, when a trial court is “presented with ‘compelling new perspectives on otherwise settled theories or techniques,’ ” Howerton v. Arai Helmet, Ltd., 358 N.C. 440, 460 , 597 S.E.2d 674, 687 (2004), it should look “beyond precedent to determine whether an expert’s area of testimony is sufficiently reliable,” the trial court was simply not presented with any such evidence in this case and did not, for that reason, have any opportunity to determine whether accepted medical thinking on the issues relevant to this case had changed.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Gamez (2×)
N.C. Ct. App. · 2013 · confidence medium
Howerton v. Arai Helmet, Ltd., 358 N.C. 440, 458 , 597 S.E.2d 674, 686 (2004).
examined Cited as authority (rule) Lake Toxaway Community Association, Inc. v. RYF Enterprises, LLC (3×)
N.C. Ct. App. · 2013 · confidence medium
We disagree. “[T]rial courts are afforded wide latitude of discretion when making a determination about the admissibility of expert testimony.” Howerton v. Aral Helmet, Ltd., 358 N.C. 440, 458 , 597 S.E.2d 674, 686 (2004) (citation and quotation marks omitted).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Dew
N.C. Ct. App. · 2013 · confidence medium
In ruling upon a request to allow the admission of expert testimony, “the trial court must determine whether the expert’s method of proof is sufficiently reliable as an area for expert testimony.” Howerton v. Arai Helmet, Ltd., 358 N.C. 440, 459 , 597 S.E.2d 674, 686 (2004) (citing State v. Goode, 341 N.C. 513, 527-29 , 461 S.E.2d 631, 639-40 (1995)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Ramey Kemp & Associates, Inc. v. Richmond Hills Residential Partners, LLC
N.C. Ct. App. · 2013 · confidence medium
Howerton v. Arai Helmet, Ltd., 358 N.C. 440, 469 , 597 S.E.2d 674, 692 (2004) (citations omitted) (emphasis added).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of Nicole Hope YOCUM, a juvenile.
313A03.
Supreme Court of North Carolina.
Nov 7, 2003.
597 S.E.2d 674
Per Curiam.
Published

Charles W. Porter, Charlotte, for petitioner-appellee Brenda Lee Yocum.

Sofie W. Hosford, for respondent-appellant Adam Jermaine Austin.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.