green
Positive treatment
3.9 score
Treatment trajectory · 1987 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1987
2006
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
Smith v. Smith
(2×)
See Hartman v. Hartman, 82 N.C.App. 167 , 346 S.E.2d 196 (1986), aff'd, 319 N.C. 396 , 354 S.E.2d 239 (1987).
discussed
Cited "see"
Lawrence v. Lawrence
(2×)
See Hartman v. Hartman, 82 N.C.App. 167, 181 , 346 S.E.2d 196, 204 (1986), aff'd, 319 N.C. 396 , 354 S.E.2d 239 (1987).
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
Tankersley v. Tankersley
(4×)
See also Hartman v. Hartman, 82 N.C.App. 167 , 346 S.E.2d 196 (1986), aff'd, 319 N.C. 396 , 354 S.E.2d 239 (1987). *830 Indeed, in Draughon v. Draughon, 82 N.C.App. 738 , 347 S.E.2d 871 (1986), review denied, 319 N.C. 103 , 353 S.E.2d 107 (1987), the court rejected the trial court's approach of valuing the business solely based on the net value of the tangible assets.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Raleigh Wilbur HARTMAN
v.
Elsie H. HARTMAN.
v.
Elsie H. HARTMAN.
528A86.
Supreme Court of North Carolina.
Apr 7, 1987.
Per Curiam.
Published
Morrow, Long and Black by John F. Morrow and Clifton R. Long, Jr., Winston-Salem, for plaintiff-appellee.
Petree, Stockton & Robinson by W. Thompson Comerford, Jr. and Jane C. Jackson, Winston-Salem, for defendant-appellant.
PER CURIAM.
AFFIRMED.
WEBB and WHICHARD, JJ., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.