professional negligence claim (North Carolina) · Go Syfert
← North Carolina issues

professional negligence claim in North Carolina

8 North Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 2012–2022 2 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.

Followed or applied (8)

CaseFollowedCited
Michael v. Huffman Oil Co., Inc.green
ncctapp · 2008 · cited in 2 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2014–2018
2 sentences

2018A claimant is required to establish the standard of care for a professional negligence claim through expert testimony “[w]here the common knowledge and experience of the jury is [not] sufficient to evaluate compliance with a standard of care[.]” Id. (quoting Michael v. Huffman Oil Co., 190 N.C.

2018App. 256, 271 , 661 S.E.2d 1, 11 (2008)).

12
Webster v. Powellgreen
ncctapp · 1990 · cited in 2 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2013–2014
2 sentences

2014The ground for reversing a court's decision on such a motion is an abuse of discretion.” Webster v. Powell, 98 N.C.

2013App. 432, 440 , 391 S.E.2d 204, 208 (1990) (“A professional negligence claim against an attorney is, in essence, a legal malpractice claim.”), aff’dper curiam, 328 N.C. 88 , 399 S.E.2d 113 (1991).

12
Comput. Design & Integration, LLC v. Browngreen
ncbizct · 2018 · cited in 1 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2022–2022
1 sentence

2022Design & Integration, LLC v. Brown, 2018 NCBC 128, ¶ 153 (N.C.

11
Bogovich v. Embassy Club of Sedgefield, Inc.green
ncctapp · 2011 · cited in 1 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2021–2021
1 sentence

2021See, e.g., Bogovich v. Embassy Club of Sedgefield, Inc., 211 N.C.

11
Brown-Wilbert, Inc. v. Copeland Buhl & Co.green
minn · 2007 · cited in 1 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2018–2018
1 sentence

2018See, e.g., Hassebrock v. Bernhoft, 815 F.3d 334, 343 (7th Cir. 2016) (“[E]stablishing the duty of care for accountants requires expert testimony.”); In re Puda Coal Sec., Inc., 30 F. Supp. 3d 230, 249 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) (“In accounting malpractice cases, in which a mere negligence standard could be sufficient to establish liability, expert testimony is typically required.”); Brown-Wilbert, Inc. v. Copeland Buhl & Co., 732 N.W.2d 209, 218 (Minn. 2007) (holding plaintiff asserting accounting malpractice claim must present expert testimony identifying applicable standard of care and opining that acc

11
In re Puda Coal Securities Inc., Litigationgreen
nysd · 2014 · cited in 1 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2018–2018
1 sentence

2018See, e.g., Hassebrock v. Bernhoft, 815 F.3d 334, 343 (7th Cir. 2016) (“[E]stablishing the duty of care for accountants requires expert testimony.”); In re Puda Coal Sec., Inc., 30 F. Supp. 3d 230, 249 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) (“In accounting malpractice cases, in which a mere negligence standard could be sufficient to establish liability, expert testimony is typically required.”); Brown-Wilbert, Inc. v. Copeland Buhl & Co., 732 N.W.2d 209, 218 (Minn. 2007) (holding plaintiff asserting accounting malpractice claim must present expert testimony identifying applicable standard of care and opining that acc

11
Orvil Hassebrock v. Robert Bernhoftgreen
ca7 · 2016 · cited in 1 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2018–2018
1 sentence

2018See, e.g., Hassebrock v. Bernhoft, 815 F.3d 334, 343 (7th Cir. 2016) (“[E]stablishing the duty of care for accountants requires expert testimony.”); In re Puda Coal Sec., Inc., 30 F. Supp. 3d 230, 249 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) (“In accounting malpractice cases, in which a mere negligence standard could be sufficient to establish liability, expert testimony is typically required.”); Brown-Wilbert, Inc. v. Copeland Buhl & Co., 732 N.W.2d 209, 218 (Minn. 2007) (holding plaintiff asserting accounting malpractice claim must present expert testimony identifying applicable standard of care and opining that acc

11
Harrold v. Dowdgreen
ncctapp · 2002 · cited in 1 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2012–2012
2 sentences

2012J.) {26} The Stratton Plaintiffs were parties to the original Cabrera Case filed on June 23, 2009, and alleged in the Complaint a claim for professional negligence against “Unknown Appraiser #5.” (Compl. ¶ 211.) The substitution of Defendant Hollifield in the Amended Complaint for “Unknown Appraiser # 5” attempts to identify the previously unknown appraiser, and to have the professional negligence claim relate back to the date when Plaintiffs filed the original Complaint. {27} A cause of action for professional negligence would have accrued “when the wrong giving rise to the right to bring sui

2012App. at 781 , 561 S.E.2d at 918 (citation omitted).

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in North Carolina. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (3)

CaseCitedYears
Frankenmuth Insurance v. City of Hickory green
ncctapp · 2014
1 sentence

2018A claimant is required to establish the standard of care for a professional negligence claim through expert testimony “[w]here the common knowledge and experience of the jury is [not] sufficient to evaluate compliance with a standard of care[.]” Id. (quoting Michael v. Huffman Oil Co., 190 N.C.

12018–2018
Webster v. Powell procedural
nc · 1991
2 sentences

2013App. 432, 440 , 391 S.E.2d 204, 208 (1990) (“A professional negligence claim against an attorney is, in essence, a legal malpractice claim.”), aff’dper curiam, 328 N.C. 88 , 399 S.E.2d 113 (1991).

2013App. 432, 440 , 391 S.E.2d 204, 208 (1990) (“A professional negligence claim against an attorney is, in essence, a legal malpractice claim.”), aff’dper curiam, 328 N.C. 88 , 399 S.E.2d 113 (1991).

12013–2013
Whiteheart v. Waller green
ncctapp · 2009
1 sentence

2012In seeking to persuade us to reach a different result, Defendant relies upon our decision in Whiteheart v. Waller, 199 N.C.

12012–2012

Statutes the citing opinions construe

NC § N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1 (3)

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.

Where else courts name it

TX 50 (1993–2026) CA 50 (2000–2026) IL 21 (1996–2025) GA 19 (1991–2025) PA 17 (1998–2018) CO 9 (1991–2026) NC 8 (2012–2022) WA 6 (1997–2026) FL 6 (1992–2021) AZ 6 (1997–2021) OH 6 (1987–2026) MT 6 (1996–2022) OR 5 (1998–2025) ME 5 (2003–2021) NE 5 (1998–2020) MD 5 (1991–2011) NJ 4 (2002–2019) NV 4 (2009–2025) IA 3 (1996–2012) MO 3 (1995–2018) KY 3 (2010–2021) NM 3 (2008–2014) SC 3 (2021–2025) MN 3 (2015–2024) IN 3 (2007–2024) NY 3 (2004–2021) WY 3 (2002–2025) AL 2 (2012–2024) CT 2 (2001–2002) DE 2 (2020–2025) WV 2 (2023–2023) SD 2 (2005–2015) AK 2 (1995–2002) ND 2 (2006–2021) VT 2 (2011–2022) KS 2 (2002–2022)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check