U.S.I.F. Wynnewood Corp. v. Soderquist
Court of Appeals of North Carolina
1Opinion of the Court
ARNOLD, Judge.
Plaintiff contends that the trial court erred in allowing Mr. Soderquist, the male defendant, to testify regarding his mental and physical condition. Plaintiff objects to the testimony because it was self-serving. This contention is rejected. A party may testify as to what his own mental condition was at a particular time. See State v. Nall, 211 N.C. 61, 188 S.E. 637 (1936).
Plaintiff’s next assignment of error relates to the trial court’s ruling permitting Mr. Soderquist to testify regarding the source of his depression, and as to the purpose for which certain drugs were…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Monger v. . LutterlohSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1928
- Moore v. DealSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1954
- Glisson v. . GlissonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1910
- Johnson v. . SidburySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1945
- Doxol Gas of Angier, Inc. v. BarefootCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1971
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by17 opinions
- Thomas M. McInnis & Associates, Inc. v. HallSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1986
- Dishman v. DishmanCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1978
- Sellers v. RodriguezCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2002
- Oxford Plastics v. GoodsonCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1985
- Hoglen v. JamesCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1978
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.