13 North Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1986–2026 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by North Carolina courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Barbee v. Whap, P.A.green2 sentences2018App. ----, 803 S.E.2d 701 , COA16-1154 (2017) (unpub.), available at 2017 WL 3481038 , *7-11 (holding that the plaintiff's expert witness failed to demonstrate familiarity with the relevant community standard of care after the witness testified during a deposition that he had never been to the area, knew nothing about the hospital, knew nothing about the training and experience of the doctors at the hospital, and did not know any doctors in the State). 2018App. __, 803 S.E.2d 701 , COA16-1154 (2017) (unpub.), available at 2017 WL 3481038, *7-11 (holding that the plaintiff’s expert witness failed to demonstrate familiarity with the relevant community standard of care after the witness testified during a deposition that he had never been to the area, knew nothing about the hospital, knew nothing about the training and experience of the doctors at the hospital, and did not know any doctors in the State). - 33 - SAVINO V. | 1 | 2 |
Goins v. Puleogreen2 sentences2013In Judge Hudson’s supplemental order/advisory opinion, he likewise concluded that summary judgment in favor of defendants was proper, in the alternative, because plaintiffs failed to establish evidence of the applicable standard of care in that Dr. Braveman, plaintiffs’ sole standard of care expert, “is not qualified to offer standard of care opinions pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 90-21.12 and Rule 702(b) of the North Carolina Rules of Evidence on grounds that he impermissibly applied a national standard of care” and that Dr. Braveman “offered no evidence of his familiarity with either the training a 2013In Judge Hudson’s supplemental order/advisory opinion, he likewise concluded that summary judgment in favor of defendants was proper, in the alternative, because plaintiffs failed to establish evidence of the applicable standard of care in that Dr. Braveman, plaintiffs’ sole standard of care expert, “is not qualified to offer standard of care opinions pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 90-21.12 and Rule 702(b) of the North Carolina Rules of Evidence on grounds that he impermissibly applied a national standard of care” and that Dr. Braveman “offered no evidence of his familiarity with either the training a | 1 | 1 |
State v. Fletchergreen2 sentences2009However, it is not improper for the State to ‘remind the jurors that “they are the voice and conscience of the community.” ’ ” State v. Fletcher, 354 N.C. 455, 484 , 555 S.E.2d 534, 552 (2001) (citations omitted), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 846 (2002). 2009However, it is not improper for the State to ‘remind the jurors that “they are the voice and conscience of the community.” ’ ” State v. Fletcher, 354 N.C. 455, 484 , 555 S.E.2d 534, 552 (2001) (citations omitted), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 846 (2002). | 1 | 1 |
Hunt v. Bradshawgreen2 sentences2009Defendants instead complain that questions regarding whether Dr. Weintraub “used his best judgment or exercised reasonable care and diligence . . . were asked outside the context of a community standard and were opinions based on speculation as to the state of mind of Doctor Weintraub.” Defendants’ argument hinges on their contention that Hunt v. Bradshaw, 242 N.C. 517, 522 , 88 S.E.2d 762, 765 (1955), was superseded or altered by N.C. 2009Defendants instead complain that questions regarding whether Dr. Weintraub “used his best judgment or exercised reasonable care and diligence . . . were asked outside the context of a community standard and were opinions based on speculation as to the state of mind of Doctor Weintraub.” Defendants’ argument hinges on their contention that Hunt v. Bradshaw, 242 N.C. 517, 522 , 88 S.E.2d 762, 765 (1955), was superseded or altered by N.C. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Gappinsgreen2 sentences1991"The admission of evidence which is technically inadmissible will be treated as harmless unless prejudice is shown such that a different result likely would have ensued had the evidence been excluded." State v. Gappins, 320 N.C. 64, 68 , 357 S.E.2d 654, 657 (1987). 1991"The admission of evidence which is technically inadmissible will be treated as harmless unless prejudice is shown such that a different result likely would have ensued had the evidence been excluded." State v. Gappins, 320 N.C. 64, 68 , 357 S.E.2d 654, 657 (1987). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in North Carolina. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Smith v. Whitmer
green
2 sentences2018The same or similar community requirement was specifically adopted to avoid the imposition of a national or regional standard of care for health care providers. 159 N.C. 2018App. 192 , 582 S.E.2d 669 (2003), defendant contends Dr. Mayer's testimony was insufficient to establish that he was familiar with the relevant community standard of care because Dr. Mayer had never been to the area prior to offering testimony in this case; Dr. Mayer had never practiced medicine in North Carolina, held a medical license in North Carolina, or previously testified in North Carolina; Dr. Mayer's familiarity was based on the demographics package received for purposes of testifying; and because Dr. Mayer noted differences between CMC-Northeast and Albany Medical Center and unjustif | 4 | 2015–2018 |
Daly v. Daly
green
2 sentences2018App. ----, 803 S.E.2d 701 , COA16-1154 (2017) (unpub.), available at 2017 WL 3481038 , *7-11 (holding that the plaintiff's expert witness failed to demonstrate familiarity with the relevant community standard of care after the witness testified during a deposition that he had never been to the area, knew nothing about the hospital, knew nothing about the training and experience of the doctors at the hospital, and did not know any doctors in the State). 2018App. __, 803 S.E.2d 701 , COA16-1154 (2017) (unpub.), available at 2017 WL 3481038, *7-11 (holding that the plaintiff’s expert witness failed to demonstrate familiarity with the relevant community standard of care after the witness testified during a deposition that he had never been to the area, knew nothing about the hospital, knew nothing about the training and experience of the doctors at the hospital, and did not know any doctors in the State). - 33 - SAVINO V. | 2 | 2018–2018 |
Tucker v. Meis
green
2 sentences2001Id. at 198-99, 487 S.E.2d at 829 . 2001Id. at 198-99, 487 S.E.2d at 829 . | 2 | 2001–2001 |
Marley v. Graper
green
1 sentence2026In Marley, while the expert did not demonstrate familiarity with the defendant’s community standard of care, he determined that the defendant met the “highest standard of care found anywhere in the United States.” 135 N.C. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Henry v. Southeastern Ob-Gyn Associates
green
2 sentences2015First, in Henry v. Southeastern OB-GYN Assocs., P.A., this Court held that the similar community requirement was not met where the proffered expert "failed to testify in any instance that he was familiar with the standard of care in Wilmington or similar communities." *849 145 N.C.App. 208 , 210, 550 S.E.2d 245 , 246, aff'd per curiam, 354 N.C. 570 , 557 S.E.2d 530 (2001). 2015First, in Henry v. Southeastern OB-GYN Assocs., P.A., this Court held that the similar community requirement was not met where the proffered expert "failed to testify in any instance that he was familiar with the standard of care in Wilmington or similar communities." *849 145 N.C.App. 208 , 210, 550 S.E.2d 245 , 246, aff'd per curiam, 354 N.C. 570 , 557 S.E.2d 530 (2001). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Henry v. Southeastern Ob-Gyn Associates, P.A.
green
2 sentences2015First, in Henry v. Southeastern OB-GYN Assocs., P.A., this Court held that the similar community requirement was not met where the proffered expert "failed to testify in any instance that he was familiar with the standard of care in Wilmington or similar communities." *849 145 N.C.App. 208 , 210, 550 S.E.2d 245 , 246, aff'd per curiam, 354 N.C. 570 , 557 S.E.2d 530 (2001). 2015First, in Henry v. Southeastern OB-GYN Assocs., P.A., this Court held that the similar community requirement was not met where the proffered expert "failed to testify in any instance that he was familiar with the standard of care in Wilmington or similar communities." *849 145 N.C.App. 208 , 210, 550 S.E.2d 245 , 246, aff'd per curiam, 354 N.C. 570 , 557 S.E.2d 530 (2001). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Smedley v. Pierce
green
1 sentence2009However, it is not improper for the State to ‘remind the jurors that “they are the voice and conscience of the community.” ’ ” State v. Fletcher, 354 N.C. 455, 484 , 555 S.E.2d 534, 552 (2001) (citations omitted), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 846 (2002). | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Biggers v. John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance
neutral
1 sentence2001Id. at 198-99, 487 S.E.2d at 829 . | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Gray v. Mississippi
green
2 sentences1995Defendant relies on Gray v. Mississippi, 481 U.S. 648 , 95 L. 1995Defendant relies on Gray v. Mississippi, 481 U.S. 648 , 95 L. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Lockhart v. McCree
green
2 sentences1986Id. at —, 90 L.Ed. 2d at 148 . 1986Id. at —, 90 L.Ed. 2d at 148 . | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.