Comstock v. Comstock

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding “cursory reference” insufficient to satisfy Appellate Rule 28(b)(6) where party “offers no actual substantive argument with regard to [an] issue”
• holding “cursory reference” insufficient to satisfy Appellate Rule 28(b)(6) where party “offers no actual substantive argument with regard to [an] issue”
• affirming there was good cause to renew the DVPO based on the trial court’s findings regarding the plaintiff’s continued fear of the defendant, where the defendant “continued to harass and threaten” the plaintiff even with the DVPO in effect

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

9 cases in this archive cite this case.

• In re: I.B.
  Court of Appeals of North Carolina· 2018-11-20· cited 5×
• State v. Williams
  Court of Appeals of North Carolina· 2016-04-19· cited 4×
• State v. Mylett
  Court of Appeals of North Carolina· 2017-04-18· cited 1×
• Cummings v. Carroll
  Court of Appeals of North Carolina· 2020-03-03
• Jabari v. Jabari
  Court of Appeals of North Carolina· 2022-06-07
• Edwards v. Cole
  Court of Appeals of North Carolina· 2017-02-07
• State v. Cable
  Court of Appeals of North Carolina· 2024-06-18
• Honacher v. Uhlhorn
  Court of Appeals of North Carolina· 2024-12-31
• Roy v. Martin
  Court of Appeals of North Carolina· 2025-02-05

Cites

1 case in this archive is cited by this case.

• Thomas v. Williams
  Court of Appeals of North Carolina· 2015-07-07· cited 8×