green
Positive treatment
published
Doctrinal family: In Re the Appeal From the Civil … ↗
Issue: predominant factor testNC ↗
Issue: public policy exceptionNC ↗
Issue: stare decisis doctrineNC ↗
Issue: necessaries doctrineNC ↗
Quoted verbatim 3×
32.9 score
Treatment trajectory · 1986 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1986
2006
2026
Cited for
At page 888 Court's responsibility to follow supreme court decisions16 citing casesholding 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
- In re West, 931 S.E.2d 10 (N.C. Ct. App. 2026).published“responsibility to follow those decisions, until otherwise ordered by the Supreme Court”
- Routten v. Routten, 822 S.E.2d 436 (N.C. Ct. App. 2018).published “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”
- Shackelford v. Lundquist, No. 13-960 (N.C. Ct. App. May 6, 2014).unpublished Even if we were to hold that the laws of alienation of affection and criminal conversation are unconstitutional, which we are clearly without authority to do,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 jurisdict…
- State v. Whitaker, 689 S.E.2d 395 (N.C. Ct. App. 2009).published (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 re…)
- State v. Corbett, 661 S.E.2d 759 (N.C. Ct. App. 2008).published (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 foll…)
- Mullis v. Sechrest, 484 S.E.2d 423 (N.C. Ct. App. 1997).published 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).
- Stein v. Hall, 925 S.E.2d 832 (N.C. Ct. App. 2026).published See - 29 - 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”).
- State v. Tripp, 882 S.E.2d 75 (N.C. Ct. App. 2022).published 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). ¶ 18 Defendant also urges this Court not to apply the Diaz Exception to our State’s tradi…
- Gift Surplus, LLC v. State ex rel. Cooper, No. 363A14-4 (N.C. Feb. 11, 2022).published (holding the Court of Appeals has no authority to overrule decisions of this Court)
- State v. Ledbetter, 779 S.E.2d 164 (N.C. Ct. App. 2015).published 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).
Show 3 more citing cases
- State v. Halley, 691 S.E.2d 766 (N.C. Ct. App. 2010).published See Cannon v. Miller, 313 N.C. 324, 324 , 327 S.E.2d 888, 888 (1985).
- State v. Philip Morris USA Inc., 669 S.E.2d 753 (N.C. Ct. App. 2008).published 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…
- State v. DEMAIO, 716 S.E.2d 863 (N.C. Ct. App. 2011).published 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…
q1 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, un…8 citing cases
- State v. Whitaker, 689 S.E.2d 395 (N.C. Ct. App. 2009).published 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 as…
- State v. Corbett, 661 S.E.2d 759 (N.C. Ct. App. 2008).published 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…
- Stein v. Hall, 925 S.E.2d 832 (N.C. Ct. App. 2026).published (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)
- Edwards v. Town of Louisburg, 892 S.E.2d 76 (N.C. Ct. App. 2023).published (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…)
- State v. Miles, 730 S.E.2d 816 (N.C. Ct. App. 2012).published (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 C…)
- State v. Philip Morris USA Inc., 669 S.E.2d 753 (N.C. Ct. App. 2008).published (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 Supr…)
- Martinez v. Wake Cty. Bd. of Educ., 813 S.E.2d 658 (N.C. Ct. App. 2018).published (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)
- State v. DEMAIO, 716 S.E.2d 863 (N.C. Ct. App. 2011).published (The Court of Appeals has a “responsibility to follow” decisions of the North Carolina Supreme Court, until otherwise ordered by the Supreme Court.)
q2 “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.”5 citing cases
- In re West, 931 S.E.2d 10 (N.C. Ct. App. 2026).publishedAlthough 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 otherw…
- Routten v. Routten, 822 S.E.2d 436 (N.C. Ct. App. 2018).published 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.…
- State v. Miles, 730 S.E.2d 816 (N.C. Ct. App. 2012).published 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,…
- Dunn v. Pate, 415 S.E.2d 102 (N.C. Ct. App. 1992).published
Other citing cases
- Francisco Garcia Huizar, III - Adversary Proceeding, No. 19-05007 (Bankr. W.D. Tex. Oct. 2, 2019).
- Puryear v. Puryear, No. 13-1014 (N.C. Ct. App. May 6, 2014).unpublished
- Johnson v. Pearce, 557 S.E.2d 189 (N.C. Ct. App. 2001).published
- State v. Dunston, No. 14-401 (N.C. Ct. App. Aug. 5, 2014).unpublished
- Long v. Ostroff, 854 A.2d 524 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2004).published
- Pharr v. Beck, 554 S.E.2d 851 (N.C. Ct. App. 2001).published
- Maraman v. Cooper Steel Fabricators, 555 S.E.2d 309 (N.C. Ct. App. 2001).published
- Atassi v. Atassi, 470 S.E.2d 59 (N.C. Ct. App. 1996).published
- Corns v. Hall, 435 S.E.2d 88 (N.C. Ct. App. 1993).published
- Leonard v. Hammond, 804 F.2d 838 (4th Cir. 1986).published
Show 6 more citing cases
- Lumley v. Dancy Const. Co., 339 S.E.2d 9 (N.C. Ct. App. 1986).published
- State v. Perkins, 881 S.E.2d 842 (N.C. Ct. App. 2022).published
- Est. of Browne v. Thompson, 727 S.E.2d 573 (N.C. Ct. App. 2012).published
- McCutchen v. McCutchen, 612 S.E.2d 162 (N.C. Ct. App. 2005).published
- Bosley v. Alexander, 442 S.E.2d 82 (N.C. Ct. App. 1994).published
- In re the Appeal from the Civil Penalty Assessed for Violations of the Sedimentation Pollution Control Act Administered by the Dep't of Nat. Resources & Cmty. Dev. by Harris, 373 S.E.2d 572 (N.C. Ct. App. 1988).published
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.
Published opinion
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