Harwood v. Johnson, 392 S.E.2d 90 (N.C. 1990). · Go Syfert
Harwood v. Johnson, 392 S.E.2d 90 (N.C. 1990). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 2× by 1 distinct case, last quoted 2008 · …principles of construction applicable to contracts also apply to premarital agreements ⚠ not in text
35 citation events (17 in the last 25 years) across 7 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: McIntyre v. McIntyre (ncctapp, 2008-01-15)
Treatment trajectory · 1990 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1990 2008 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers. How cited ↗
examined Cited as authority (quoted) McIntyre v. McIntyre (2×)
N.C. Ct. App. · 2008 · quote attribution · 2 verbatim quotes · confidence low
principles of construction applicable to contracts also apply to premarital agreements
discussed Cited "see" Dalenko v. WAKE COUNTY DEPT. OF HUMAN SERV.
N.C. Ct. App. · 2003 · signal: see · confidence high
See Harwood v. Johnson, 326 N.C. 231, 237 , 388 S.E.2d 439, 443 (where suit cannot be maintained against governmental entity, suit may not be maintained against employee of that entity for actions taken in employee's official capacity), reh'g denied, 326 N.C. 488 , 392 S.E.2d 90 (1990).
discussed Cited "see" Dalenko v. Wake County Department of Human Services
N.C. Ct. App. · 2003 · signal: see · confidence high
See Harwood v. Johnson, 326 N.C. 231, 237 , 388 S.E.2d 439, 443 (where suit cannot be maintained against governmental entity, suit may not be maintained against employee of that entity for actions taken in employee’s official capacity), reh’g denied, 326 N.C. 488 , 392 S.E.2d 90 (1990).
discussed Cited "see" Shaw v. Stroud
4th Cir. · 1994 · signal: accord · confidence high
Accord Harwood v. Johnson, 92 N.C.App. 306 , 374 S.E.2d 401 (App.1988), aff'd in part, rev’d in part on other grounds, 326 N.C. 231 , 388 S.E.2d 439 (1990), reh’g denied, 326 N.C. 488 , 392 S.E.2d 90 (1990); Piggot v. City of Wilmington, 50 N.CApp. 401, 273 S.E.2d 752 (1981).
discussed Cited "see" Deborah Shaw, Administratrix of the Estate of Sidney Bowen, Deceased Nancy Bowen, Individually, and as Guardian Ad Litem for Kimberly Yvonne Bowen and Lee Frederick Bowen, the Minor Children of Sidney Bowen v. C.I. Stroud, Individually, and Alfred E. Morris, J.M. Smith J.A. McVicker J.H. Parks, in Their Individual Capacities, Deborah Shaw, Administratrix of the Estate of Sidney Bowen, Deceased Nancy Bowen, Individually, and as Guardian Ad Litem for Kimberly Yvonne Bowen and Lee Frederick Bowen, the Minor Children of Sidney Bowen v. Alfred E. Morris C.I. Stroud, J.M. Smith, in Their Individual Capacities, and J.A. McVicker J.H. Parks, in Their Individual Capacities, Deborah Shaw, Administratrix of the Estate of Sidney Bowen, Deceased Nancy Bowen, Individually, and as Guardian Ad Litem for Kimberly Yvonne Bowen and Lee Frederick Bowen, the Minor Children of Sidney Bowen v. C.I. Stroud Alfred E. Morris J.M. Smith, in Their Individual Capacities, Deborah Shaw, Administratrix of the Estate of Sidney Bowen, Deceased Nancy Bowen, Individually, and as Guardian Ad Litem for Kimberly Yvonne Bowen and Lee Frederick Bowen, the Minor Children of Sidney Bowen v. C.I. Stroud, Individually
4th Cir. · 1994 · signal: accord · confidence high
Accord Harwood v. Johnson, 92 N.C.App. 306 , 374 S.E.2d 401 (App.1988), aff'd in part, rev'd in part on other grounds, 326 N.C. 231 , 388 S.E.2d 439 (1990), reh'g denied, 326 N.C. 488 , 392 S.E.2d 90 (1990); Piggot v. City of Wilmington, 50 N.C.App. 401 , 273 S.E.2d 752 (1981).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Hemric v. Groce
N.C. Ct. App. · 2005 · signal: see also · confidence low
App. 181, 185 , 571 S.E.2d 845, 848 (2002) (emphasis supplied); see also Harwood v. Johnson, 326 N.C. 231 , 388 S.E.2d 439 , reh’g denied, 326 N.C. 488 , 392 S.E.2d 90 (1990).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Price v. Davis
N.C. Ct. App. · 1999 · signal: see also · confidence low
Moreover, “[t]he provision of police services, and the erection and operation of prisons and jails, have previously been determined to *560 constitute governmental functions.” Kephart, supra (citations omitted) (holding actions of county officials in maintaining confinement facilities constitute governmental functions for purposes of applying sovereign immunity); see also, Harwood v. Johnson, 326 N.C. 231 , 388 S.E.2d 439 , reh’g denied, 326 N.C. 488 , 392 S.E.2d 90 (1990).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Williams v. Williams
N.C. Ct. App. · 1995 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Howell v. Landry, 96 N.C.App. 516, 530 , 386 S.E.2d 610, 618 (1989), disc. review denied, 326 N.C. 482 , 392 S.E.2d 90 (1990) (although G.S. § 52-10 requires acknowledgment of contracts between spouses entered into "during coverture, the period of marriage, it does not require acknowledgment for premarital agreements.") The document at issue herein recites that on the date of execution, the parties were "living separate and apart." However, it further provides that "the parties may desire to resume cohabitation as Husband and Wife in an effort to reconcile their differences," and tha…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Randy L. HARWOOD
v.
Aaron J. JOHNSON, Secretary of the North Carolina Dept. of Correction, in his official and individual capacities; Bruce B. Briggs, Chairman of the North Carolina Parole Commission, in his official and individual capacities; Louis R. Colombo, Wanda J. Garrett, Jeffrey T. Ledbetter, and A. Leon Stanback, Jr., Members of the North Carolina Parole Commission, individually and in their official capacities; Gwen O. Williams, Parole Case Analyst, in her official and individual capacities; and James F. Bame, Superintendent of the Rowan County Prison Unit, in his official capacity only.
37PA89.
Supreme Court of North Carolina.
Apr 5, 1990.
392 S.E.2d 90

Marvin Sparrow and Michael S. Hamden, for Harwood.

Jacob L. Safron, Sp. Deputy Atty. Gen., Raleigh, for defendants.

ORDER

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendants in this matter for rehearing of the decision of this Court pursuant to Rule 31, N.C. Rules of Appellate Procedure, 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 5th day of April 1990."