Legal Opinion
Currence v. Hardin
Court of Appeals of North Carolina
Decided April 18, 1978No. 7726DC477Published
1Opinion of the Court
243 S.E.2d 172 (1978)
Samuel Q. CURRENCE
v.
Faye Alice HARDIN.
No. 7726DC477.
Court of Appeals of North Carolina.
April 18, 1978.
Paul J. Williams, Charlotte, for plaintiff-appellant.
Caudle, Underwood & Kinsey, by C. Ralph Kinsey, Jr., Charlotte, for defendant-appellee.
BRITT, Judge.
By his first assignment of error, plaintiff contends the trial court erred in not allowing Dr. Logan to testify with respect to his chiropractic diagnosis of plaintiff. We find no merit in this contention.
In North Carolina chiropractors are allowed to testify as experts in their special field as defined and limited by…
Also in this document: Dissent.
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Rural Plumbing & Heating, Inc. v. H. C. Jones Construction Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1966
- State v. HedrickSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1976
- Goldston v. ChambersSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1967
- In Re BrownCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1974
- REDEVELOPMENT COM'N OF CITY OF DURHAM v. HolmanCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1976
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.