Legal Opinion

Garland v. Shull

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided May 1, 1979No. 7825SC656PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MITCHELL, Judge.

The defendants assign as error the admission of Dr. Powell’s testimony concerning his opinion of the future duration of the plaintiff’s headaches. After Dr. Powell was asked the hypothetical question, the defendant,objected. The trial court then conducted a voir dire examination of the witness. During the voir dire examination, Dr. Powell testified that it was his opinion “That these headaches have resulted from the accident, and that although they may not last the rest of her life, they are — they may last for years, the exact length of time I do not know.” At the conclusion…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Fisher Ex Rel. Fisher v. RogersSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1960

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Wesley v. Greyhound Lines, Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1980
  2. Johnson v. Piggly Wiggly of Pinetops, Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 2003
  3. Lee v. ReganCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1980
  4. Collins v. St. George Physical TherapyCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2000
  5. Largent v. AcuffCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1984

2 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