Legal Opinion

Spinella v. Pearce

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided August 4, 1971No. 7110SC288PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

PARKER, Judge.

Appellant has noted ten assignments of error. Numbers 1, 2, S and 5 relate to rulings of the court sustaining objections to questions asked of witnesses by plaintiff’s counsel. The answers which the witnesses would have given if permitted to answer these questions do not appear in the record. “It is elemental that the exclusion of testimony cannot be held prejudicial on appeal unless the appellant shows what the witness would have testified if permitted to do so.” Peek v. Trust Co., 242 N.C. 1, 86 S.E. 2d 745. Further, the record before us does not show any request made pursuant…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Peek v. Wachovia Bank & Trust CompanySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1955
  2. Burgess v. CG TATE CONSTRUCTION COMPANYSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1965
  3. Hinton v. ClineSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1953

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Johnson & Harber Construction Co. v. BingCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1996
  2. State v. DuvallCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1981
  3. State v. DuvallCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1981
  4. Gibbs v. DukeCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1977
  5. State v. ForehandCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1973

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