Buck v. Proctor & Gamble Manufacturing Co.
Court of Appeals of North Carolina
1Opinion of the Court
MARTIN (Robert M.), Judge.
The defendant has presented one issue for our review. The question he raises is whether, under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-88, the North Carolina Industrial Commission can order defendant, ex mero motu, to pay plaintiffs attorney fees for services rendered on appeal to the Court of Appeals, when the Court of Appeals had previously entered an order denying those same attorney fees.
Attorney fees are not ordinarily allowed as costs in civil actions or in special proceedings unless expressly authorized by statute. Bowman v. Chair Co., 271 N.C. 702, 157 S.E. 2d 378 (1967).…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- D & W, INC. v. City of CharlotteSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1966
- Collins v. SimmsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1962
- Bowman v. Comfort Chair CompanySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1967
- Taylor v. JP Stevens & Co., Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1982
- Swaney v. GEORGE NEWTON CONSTRUCTION COMPANYCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1969
3Cited by6 opinions
- Hodges v. Equity GroupCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2004
- Suggs v. Kelly Springfield Tire Co.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1984
- D'Aquisto v. Mission St. Joseph's Health SystemCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2009
- Buck v. PROCTOR & GAMBLE MANUFACTURING COMPANYSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1983
- D'Aquisto v. Mission St. Joseph's HealthCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2009
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.