Smithwick v. Crutchfield

How courts have described this case

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

• the fact that proceeding before second judge was denominated a trial did not change its essential nature of constituting a “rehearing of Defendant’s motion for summary judgment” because the same legal question was decided in both
• “[O]rdinarily one judge may not modify, overrule, or change the judgment of another Superior Court judge previously made in the same action.” (quoting Calloway v. Ford Motor Co., 281 N.C. 496, 501, 189 S.E.2d 484, 488 (1972))

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

7 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Taidoc Tech. Corp. v. Ok Biotech Co., Ltd
  North Carolina Business Court· 2014-10-09· cited 3×
• Daughtridge v. N.C. Zoological Soc'y, Inc.
  Court of Appeals of North Carolina· 2016-04-19· cited 1×
• STATE Ex Rel. Comm'r Ins. v. CUSTARD
  North Carolina Business Court· 2010-03-19· cited 1×
• In Re Se. Eye Ctr. (Old Battleground v. Ccsea)
  North Carolina Business Court· 2019-05-07· cited 1×
• MENARD BY AND THROUGH MENARD v. Johnson
  Court of Appeals of North Carolina· 1992-01-07
• Nelson v. State Employees' Credit Union
  Court of Appeals of North Carolina· 2015-08-04
• Morris Int'l, Inc. v. Packer, 2021 Ncbc 66a
  North Carolina Business Court· 2021-11-02

Cites

1 case in this archive is cited by this case.

• Barbour v. Little
  Court of Appeals of North Carolina· 1978-08-29· cited 43×