green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 3×
31.1 score
G Cite
cited 2× by 1 distinct case, last quoted 2001 ·
…t is the province of our legislature to change the accepted common law in this state
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 1986 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1986
2006
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 36 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Francisco Garcia Huizar, III - Adversary Proceeding
it is therefore ordered that the petition for discretionary review is allowed for the sole purpose of vacating the decision of the court of appeals purporting to abolish the causes of action for alienation of affections and criminal conversation.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Johnson v. Pearce
(2×)
t is the province of our legislature to change the accepted common law in this state
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In re: West
Although the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure may be “pertinent for guidance and enlightenment,” our North Carolina Supreme Court creates binding precedent in our state, and it is our “responsibility to follow those decisions, until otherwise ordered by the Supreme Court.” Cannon v. Miller, 313 N.C. 324, 324 , 327 S.E.2d 888, 888 (1985).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Stein v. Hall
(3×)
HALL Opinion of the Court Cannon v. Miller, 313 N.C. 324, 324, 327 S.E.2d 888, 888 (1985) (noting the Court of Appeals’ “responsibility to follow th[e] decisions [of the Supreme Court of North Carolina], until otherwise ordered by the Supreme Court”).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Routten v. Routten
We do not have the “authority to overrule decisions of the Supreme Court of North Carolina and [have a] responsibility to follow those decisions, until otherwise ordered by the Supreme Court.” Cannon v. Miller, 313 N.C. 324, 324 , 327 S.E.2d 888, 888 (1985). 7 I do not suggest that the panel in Moore deliberately ignored Owenby.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Routten v. Routten
We do not have the “authority to overrule decisions of the Supreme Court of North Carolina and [have a] responsibility to follow those decisions, until otherwise ordered by the Supreme Court.” Cannon v. Miller, 313 N.C. 324, 324 , 327 S.E.2d 888, 888 (1985). 7 I do not suggest that the panel in Moore deliberately ignored Owenby.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Shackelford v. Lundquist
(2×)
Even if we were to hold that the laws of alienation of affection and criminal conversation are unconstitutional, which we are clearly without authority to do, Cannon, 313 N.C. at 324, 327 S.E.2d at 888, we would be exercising our jurisdiction to reach that conclusion.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Whitaker
(2×)
However, we do not have authority to overrule decisions of the Su preme Court, see Cannon v. Miller, 313 N.C. 324, 324 , 327 S.E.2d 888, 888 (1985) (“I[t] appearing that the panel of Judges of the Court of Appeals to which this case was assigned has acted under a misapprehension of its authority to overrule decisions of the Supreme Court of North Carolina and its responsibility to follow those decisions, until otherwise ordered by the Supreme Court.”), and it is not the province of this Court to adopt a new standard for constitutional review, particularly in a situation where our Supreme C…
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Corbett
(6×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
Cannon v. Miller, 313 N.C. 324, 324 , 327 S.E.2d 888, 888 (1985) (holding that the Court of Appeals, after abolishing two tort causes of actions, "acted under a misapprehension of its authority to overrule decisions of the Supreme Court of North Carolina and its responsibility to follow those decisions, until otherwise ordered by the Supreme Court"); State v. Parker, 140 N.C.App. 169, 172 , 539 S.E.2d 656, 659 (2000) (where the defendant asked the Court of Appeals to review a statute in light of a recent United States Supreme Court decision, the Court of Appeals noted that the Supreme Court of…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Mullis v. Sechrest
(2×)
E.g., In re Appeal from Civil Penalty, 324 N.C. 373, 384 , 379 S.E.2d 30, 37 (1989); Cannon v. Miller, 313 N.C. 324, 324 , 327 S.E.2d 888, 888 (1985).
discussed
Cited "see"
Edwards v. Town of Louisburg
(2×)
See Cannon v. Miller, 313 N.C. 324 , 327 S.E.2d 888 (1985) (the Court of Appeals “acted under a misapprehension of its authority to overrule decisions of the Supreme Court of North Carolina and its responsibility to follow those decisions, until otherwise ordered by the Supreme Court” when it abolished two tort causes of action). “[S]tanding is a ‘necessary prerequisite to a court’s proper exercise of subject matter jurisdiction[,]’” and is not a merits adjudication.
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Tripp
(2×)
See Cannon v. Miller, 313 N.C. 324, 324 , 327 S.E.2d 888, 888 (1985) (stating this Court lacks authority to overrule decisions of our Supreme Court).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. David Raeford Tripp
(2×)
See Cannon v. Miller, 313 N.C. 324, 324 , 327 S.E.2d 888, 888 (1985) (stating this Court lacks authority to overrule decisions of our Supreme Court).
discussed
Cited "see"
Gift Surplus, LLC v. State ex rel. Cooper
See Cannon v. Miller, 313 N.C. 324, 324 (1985) (holding the Court of Appeals has no authority to overrule decisions of this Court).
discussed
Cited "see"
Gift Surplus, LLC v. State ex rel. Cooper
See Cannon v. Miller, 313 N.C. 324, 324 (1985) (holding the Court of Appeals has no authority to overrule decisions of this Court).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Ledbetter
(2×)
See Cannon v. Miller, 313 N.C. 324 , 324, 327 S.E.2d 888 , 888 (1985) (holding the Court of Appeals has a "responsibility to follow" decisions of the Supreme Court, "until otherwise ordered" by our Supreme Court).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Ledbetter
(2×)
See Cannon v. Miller, 313 N.C. 324, 324 , 327 S.E.2d 888, 888 (1985) (holding the Court of Appeals has a “responsibility to follow” decisions of the Supreme Court, “until otherwise ordered” by our Supreme Court).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Dunston
(2×)
See Cannon v. Miller, 313 N.C. 324 , 327 S.E.2d 888 (1985) (holding that this Court has a “responsibility to follow” decisions issued by our Supreme Court).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Miles
(2×)
See Cannon v. Miller, 313 N.C. 324 , 327 S.E.2d 888 (1985) (holding that the Court of Appeals lacked the authority to overrule decisions of the Supreme Court of North Carolina and has, instead, a “responsibility to follow those decisions, until otherwise ordered by the Supreme Court”).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Halley
(2×)
See Cannon v. Miller, 313 N.C. 324, 324 , 327 S.E.2d 888, 888 (1985).
examined
Cited "see"
State v. Philip Morris USA Inc.
(4×)
See Cannon v. Miller, 313 N.C. 324, 324 , 327 S.E.2d 888, 888 (1985) (vacating a Court of Appeals decision after observing "that the panel of Judges of the Court of Appeals to which this case was assigned has acted under a misapprehension of its authority to overrule decisions of the Supreme Court of North Carolina and its responsibility to follow those decisions, until otherwise ordered by the Supreme Court").
discussed
Cited "see"
Long v. Ostroff
(2×)
See Cannon v. Miller, 71 N.C.App. 460 , 322 S.E.2d 780 (1984), vacated 313 N.C. 324 , 327 S.E.2d 888 (1985) (abolishing criminal conversation and alienation of affection until the North Carolina Supreme Court vacated the court of appeals’ decision on procedural grounds three months later).
discussed
Cited "see"
Pharr v. Beck
(2×)
See Cannon v. Miller, 313 N.C. 324 , 327 S.E.2d 888 (1985) (our Supreme Court can abolish common law torts); Anderson v. Assimos, 146 N.C.
examined
Cited "see"
Maraman v. Cooper Steel Fabricators
(4×)
See Cannon v. Miller, 313 N.C. at 324 , 327 S.E.2d at 888 , and Dunn v. Pate, 334 N.C. 115, 118 , 431 S.E.2d 178, 180 (1993)(Court of Appeals is "responsib[le] to follow" decisions of the North Carolina Supreme Court).
examined
Cited "see"
Atassi v. Atassi
(4×)
See Cannon v. Miller, 313 N.C. 324 , 327 S.E.2d 888 (1985); and In re Civil Penalty, 324 N.C. 373, 384 , 379 S.E.2d 30, 36 (1989).
discussed
Cited "see"
Corns v. Hall
(2×)
See Cannon v. Miller, 313 N.C. 324 , 327 S.E.2d 888 (1985).
discussed
Cited "see"
Leonard v. Hammond
(2×)
See Cannon v. Miller, 313 N.C. 324 , 327 S.E.2d 888 (1985).
discussed
Cited "see"
Leonard v. Hammond
(2×)
See Cannon v. Miller, 313 N.C. 324 , 327 S.E.2d 888 (1985).
discussed
Cited "see"
Lumley v. Dancy Const. Co., Inc.
(2×)
See, Cannon v. Miller, 313 N.C. 324 , 327 S.E. 2d 888 (1985).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Martinez v. Wake Cty. Bd. of Educ.
(2×)
App. ----, ----, 802 S.E.2d 518 , 523 (2017) ("We have examined [two Court of Appeals decisions] and conclude that these cases fail to follow the binding precedent established by [our Supreme Court], and as a result, do not control the outcome in the present case."); see also Cannon v. Miller , 313 N.C. 324 , 327 S.E.2d 888 (1985) (holding that this Court lacks authority to overrule decisions of our Supreme Court and possesses a "responsibility to follow those decisions, until otherwise ordered by the Supreme Court").
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
ESTATE OF BROWNE v. Thompson
(2×)
See e.g., Cannon v. Miller, 313 N.C. 324 , 327 S.E.2d 888 (1985).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. DEMAIO
(2×)
Id. at 194 , 592 S.E.2d at 733 ; see also Cannon v. Miller, 313 N.C. 324, 324 , 327 S.E.2d 888, 888 (1985) (The Court of Appeals has a “responsibility to follow” decisions of the North Carolina Supreme Court, until otherwise ordered by the Supreme Court.).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
McCutchen v. McCutchen
(2×)
Clark, Law of Domestic Relations § 12.2, at 656-57 (2d ed. 1987) ("The rationale is that even though the spouses are living apart, there is always a chance of reconciliation, and if the defendant's conduct has ended that chance, the action will lie.")); see also Brown, 124 N.C.App. at 381 , 477 S.E.2d at 238 ("while a husband and wife separating appears to contradict any assertions of a `happy marriage,' this Court has held that the mere fact of separation does not establish a lack of `genuine love and affection' as a matter of law") (citing Cannon v. Miller, 71 N.C.App. 460, 468-69 , 322 S.E…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Bosley v. Alexander
(2×)
App. 232 , 435 S.E.2d 88 (1993); see also Cannon v. Miller, 313 N.C. 324 , 327 S.E.2d 888 (1985).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
In re the Appeal from the Civil Penalty Assessed for Violations of the Sedimentation Pollution Control Act Administered by the Department of Natural Resources & Community Development by Harris
(2×)
App. 114, 121-22 , 339 S.E. 2d 9, 14 (1986) (statements in Court of Appeals opinion conflicting with Supreme Court opinion held without precedential value); see also Cannon v. Miller, 313 N.C. 324 , 327 S.E. 2d 888 (1985).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Haywood A. Cannon
v.
Jeffrey L. Miller
v.
Jeffrey L. Miller
21P85.
Supreme Court of North Carolina.
Feb 27, 1985.
Vaughn.
Cited by 90 opinions | Published
Citer courts: Court of Appeals of North Caro… (4) · W.D. Texas (1)
ORDER
)
IT appearing that the panel of Judges of the Court of Appeals to which this case was assigned has acted under a misapprehension of its authority to overrule decisions of the Supreme Court of North Carolina and its responsibility to follow those decisions, until otherwise ordered by the Supreme Court.
It is therefore ordered that the petition for discretionary review is allowed for the sole purpose of vacating the decision of the Court of Appeals purporting to abolish the causes of action for Alienation of Affections and Criminal Conversation.
The decision of the Court of Appeals is vacated. The case is remanded to the Court of Appeals for entry of an order reversing the order of the trial court granting summary judgment in favor of defendant and remanding the case to the Superior Court of PlTT County for trial.
This the 27th day of February, 1985.
Vaughn, J.For the Court