Tennessee-Carolina Transportation, Inc. v. Strick Corp. (1977)
green
· 71 citation events
across 3 courts.
Showing the 13 strongest citers on record
(one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Treatment trajectory · 1977 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then
197720012026
Sort:
By significance ·
Most recent
green
Stokes v. Crumpton (2016)
CRUMPTON CALABRIA, J., dissenting Tennessee-Carolina Transportation, 291 N.C. at 625 , 231 S.E.2d at 601-02 (emphasis added).
emphasis added
green
Britt v. Cusick (2014)
Id. at 620-21, 623 , 231 S.E.2d at 599, 600 .
green
Stephens v. Coakley (2025)
COAKLEY Opinion of the Court who could not be reached by subpoena. 291 N.C. 618, 623 , 231 S.E.2d 597, 600 (1977).
green
Le Bleu Corp. v. B. Kelley Enters., Inc. (2014)
P. 26(c); Tenn.-Carolina Transp., Inc. v. Strick Corp., 291 N.C. 618, 626 , 231 S.E.2d 597, 602 (1977).
green
Norris v. Sattler (2000)
Co. v. Strict Corp., 291 N.C. 618, 625, 629 , 231 S.E.2d *413 597, 601, 603 (1977) (order denying deposition of witness “effectively preclude[d]” defendant from introducing “highly material” evidence and therefore affected substantial right).
order denying deposition of witness “effectively preclude[d]” defendant from introducing “highly material” evidence and therefore affected substantial right
green
Walker v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. (1987)
Co. v. Strict Corp., 291 N.C. 618, 625 , 231 S.E. 2d 597, 601 (1977) (order denying a deposition of an out-of-state witness did affect a substantial right); Starmount Co. v. City of Greensboro, 41 N.C.
order denying a deposition of an out-of-state witness did affect a substantial right
green
Williams v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (1984)
"The statute [G.S. 1A-1, Rule 26(c)] provides that such order may be issued only `for good cause shown' and that it may be issued only `to protect a party or person from unreasonable annoyance, embarrassment, oppression or undue burden or expense.'" Transportation, Inc. v. Strick Corp., 291 N.C. 618, 626-27 , 231 S.E.2d 597, 602 (1977).
green
Williams v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance (1984)
“The statute [G.S. 1A-1, Rule 26(c)] provides that such order may be issued only ‘for good cause shown’ and that it may be issued only ‘to protect a party or person from unreasonable annoyance, embarrassment, oppression or undue burden or expense.’ ” Transportation, Inc. v. Strick Corp., 291 N.C. 618, 626-27 , 231 S.E. 2d 597, 602 (1977).
green
Wright v. American General Life Insurance (1982)
These findings and conclusions in turn sufficed to establish that “[njothing else appearing, [the witness] being beyond the reach of a subpoena, the defendant [could] take his deposition for use at the trial.” Transportation, Inc. v. Strick Corp., 291 N.C. 618, 624 , 231 S.E. 2d 597, 601 (1977).
green
Hudson v. Hudson (1977)
Justice Lake, speaking for the Supreme Court in Tennessee-Carolina Transportation, Inc. v. Strick Corp., 291 N.C. 618, 626-7 , 231 S.E. 2d 597, 602 (1977) on rehearing from 289 N.C. 587 , 223 S.E. 2d 346 (1976), wrote: “The authority of the trial judge to issue ... [a] protective order [under Rule 26(c)] is not unqualified.
green
Next Advisor Continued, Inc. v. Lendingtree, Inc. (2016)
See, e.g., Tennessee-Carolina Transp., Inc. v. Strick Corp., 291 N.C. 618, 629 , 231 S.E.2d 597, 603 (1977) (holding expert’s deposition proper where “deposition would not have delayed the trial or caused the plaintiff or the expert any unreasonable annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense” under Rule 26(c)).
holding expert’s deposition proper where “deposition would not have delayed the trial or caused the plaintiff or the expert any unreasonable annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense” under Rule 26(c)
green
Investors Title Insurance v. Herzig (1992)
See Tennessee-Carolina Transportation, Inc. v. Strick Corp., 291 N.C. 618 , 231 S.E.2d 597 (1977); Warren v. Asheville, 74 N.C.
green
State ex rel. Leonard v. Huskey (1983)
See, e.g., Tennessee- Carolina Transportation, Inc. v. Strick Corporation, 291 N.C. 618 , 231 S.E. 2d 597 (1977) (appeal permissible from order barring defendant from taking deposition of out-of-state expert witness since denial would significantly damage defendant’s case); Dworsky v. The Travelers Insurance Company, 49 N.C.
appeal permissible from order barring defendant from taking deposition of out-of-state expert witness since denial would significantly damage defendant’s case