Full text
Haywood A. Cannon v. Jeffrey L. Miller

Loading…
Opinion
313 N.C. 324 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Feb 27, 1985
Full text
Haywood A. Cannon v. Jeffrey L. Miller
Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Dec 6, 2022
Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Oct 18, 2022
Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Aug 16, 2022
Supreme Court of North Carolina · Feb 11, 2022
Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Nov 20, 2018
Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Mar 20, 2018
Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Nov 3, 2015
Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Aug 5, 2014
Parentheticals
holding that this Court has a “responsibility to follow” decisions issued by our Supreme Court
holding that this Court has a “responsibility to follow” decisions issued by our Supreme Court
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"
holding that the Court of Appeals lacks the authority to overrule decisions of the Supreme Court of North Carolina and has a “responsibility to follow those decisions, until otherwise ordered by the Supreme Court”
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 Court”
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 Court”
holding the Court of Appeals has a "responsibility to follow" decisions of the Supreme Court, "until otherwise ordered" by our Supreme Court
iterating that this Court does not have the authority to overrule decisions of the Supreme Court of North Carolina
holding the Court of Appeals has a “responsibility to follow” decisions of the Supreme Court, “until otherwise ordered” by our Supreme Court
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 follow those decisions, until otherwise ordered by the Supreme Court”
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 follow those decisions, until otherwise ordered by the Supreme Court"
holding the Court of Appeals has no authority to overrule decisions of this Court