green
Positive treatment
2.7 score
Treatment trajectory · 2002 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2002
2014
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
cited
Cited "see"
Lane v. American National Can Company
See Woody v. Thomasville Upholstery, Inc., 355 N.C. 483 , 562 S.E.2d 422 (2002) (adopting dissent in 146 N.C.App. 187 , 202 , 552 S.E.2d 202 , 211 (2001)); and Lewis v. Duke University, 163 N.C.
cited
Cited "see"
Hassell v. Onslow County Board of Education
See Woody v. Thomasville Upholstery, Inc., 355 N.C. 483 , 562 S.E.2d 422 (2002) (adopting dissent in 146 N.C.App. 187 , 202 , 552 S.E.2d 202 , 211 (2001)); and Lewis v. Duke University, 163 N.C.
cited
Cited "see"
McClelland v. New Hanover Cty. Sheriff's Dept.
See Woody v. Thomasville Upholstery, Inc ., 355 N.C. 483 , 562 S.E.2d 422 (2002) (adopting dissent in 146 N.C.
cited
Cited "see"
Bursell v. Gen. Elec. Co.
See Woody v. Thomasville Upholstery, Inc ., 355 N.C. 483 , 562 S.E.2d 422 (2002) (adopting dissent in 146 N.C.
cited
Cited "see"
Knight v. Abbott Laboratories
See Woody v. Thomasville Upholstery, Inc., 355 N.C. 483 , 562 S.E.2d 422 (2002) (per curiam) (adopting the dissent in Woody v. Thomasville Upholstery, Inc., 146 N.C.
cited
Cited "see"
Lewis v. Duke University
G.S. § 97-53 (13); see Woody v. Thomasville Upholstery , 355 N.C. 483 , 562 S.E.2d 422 (2002), rev'g per curiam for reasons stated in Judge Martin's dissent, 146 N.C.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Cochran v. Cochran
See, e.g., Dolan v. Dolan, 148 N.C.App. 256, 258-59 , 558 S.E.2d 218, 220 (holding that trial court erred in making finding as to tax consequences if parties sold *479 rental property because consequences "were hypothetical and speculative" in the absence of finding that parties would be required to liquidate property), aff'd per curiam, 355 N.C. 484 , 562 S.E.2d 422 (2002); Crowder v. Crowder, 147 N.C.App. 677, 683 , 556 S.E.2d 639, 643 (2001) ("Valuation of marital property may include tax consequences from the sale of an asset only when the sale is imminent and inevitable, rather than hypot…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Rice v. Rice
This Court has held that "[t]he factors listed under subsection (c) indicate that the legislature intended to grant the trial court the authority to consider the future prospects of the parties, as well as their status at the time of the hearing, in determining whether an equal division of marital assets would be equitable." Harris v. Harris, 84 N.C.App. 353, 359 , 352 S.E.2d 869, 873 (1987); see also Dolan v. Dolan, 148 N.C.App. 256, 259 , 558 S.E.2d 218, 220 (postseparation rental income can be a distributional factor), aff'd, 355 N.C. 484 , 562 S.E.2d 422 (2002) (per curiam); Chandler v. Ch…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Brenda Gail BRADLEY, individually and as Administratrix for the Estate of Harvey Lee Bradley, Sr.; and Sonya Annette Bradley
v.
HIDDEN VALLEY TRANSPORTATION, INC.
v.
HIDDEN VALLEY TRANSPORTATION, INC.
29A02.
Supreme Court of North Carolina.
May 10, 2002.
Per Curiam.
Published
Simpson Kuehnert Vinay & Bellas, P.A., by Daniel A. Kuehnert, Morganton, for plaintiff-appellants.
Roberts & Stevens, P.A., by Kenneth R. Hunt and Frank P. Graham, Asheville, for defendant-appellee.
PER CURIAM.
AFFIRMED.