Legal Opinion

Powers v. Tatum

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided May 5, 2009No. COA08-137PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

STEELMAN, Judge.

The district court’s dismissal of the criminal charge of driving while impaired based upon a violation of petitioner’s right to have a witness present did not operate as collateral estoppel on the issue of willful refusal to submit to an Intoxilyzer test in a subsequent administrative license revocation hearing. Where petitioner fails to challenge any of the trial court’s findings of fact on appeal, they are binding on the appellate court, and establish that petitioner’s refusal to take the Intoxilyzer test was not based upon the fact that his witness was not present.

I.…

2Cases cited20 opinions

  1. Koufman v. KoufmanSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1991
  2. Coble v. CobleSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1980
  3. Quick v. QuickSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1982
  4. Williams v. Pilot Life Insurance CompanySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1975
  5. State v. SummersSupreme Court of North Carolina · 2000

15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Steinkrause v. TatumCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2009
  2. Lewis v. HopeCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2012
  3. State v. JonesCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2017
  4. Powers v. TatumSupreme Court of North Carolina · 2009
  5. Cook v. ThomasCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2017

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API