Currence v. Hardin
Supreme Court of North Carolina
1Opinion of the Court
MOORE, Justice.
The sole question for review is whether the trial court erred in not permitting plaintiff’s witness, Dr. J. Timothy Logan, to testify concerning his chiropractic diagnosis of plaintiff’s condition. In the absence of the jury, the trial judge implied that the basis of his ruling was that a chiropractor was incompetent to testify concerning his diagnosis of a condition in the absence of other competent medical evidence. Plaintiff contends that a chiropractor, as an expert witness, is fully qualified to give his expert opinion and diagnosis in the absence of other medical evidence.
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Herencia v. GuzmanSupreme Court of the United States · 1911
- Eubanks v. EubanksSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1968
- Rural Plumbing & Heating, Inc. v. H. C. Jones Construction Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1966
- Hampton v. . HardinSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1883
- Armour and Company v. John A. Nard, Armour and Company v. John A. NardCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1972
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by36 opinions
- State v. GolphinSupreme Court of North Carolina · 2000
- State v. SimpsonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1985
- State v. SatterfieldSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1980
- State v. RainesSupreme Court of North Carolina · 2007
- State v. KilpatrickSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1996
31 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.