Legal Opinion

Currence v. Hardin

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided April 18, 1978No. 7726DC477PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

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 statute. Allen v. Hinson, 12 N.C. App. 515, 183 S.E. 2d 852, cert. denied 279 N.C. 726, 184 S.E. 2d 883 (1971). The scope of testimony limited by the Allen case was recently expanded by G.S. 90-157.2. However, this statute is not applicable to the present case since…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Rural Plumbing & Heating, Inc. v. H. C. Jones Construction Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1966
  2. State v. HedrickSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1976
  3. Goldston v. ChambersSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1967
  4. In Re BrownCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1974
  5. REDEVELOPMENT COM'N OF CITY OF DURHAM v. HolmanCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1976

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Mitchem v. SimsCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1982
  2. Henderson v. Provident Life & Accident InsuranceCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1983
  3. Currence v. HardinCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1978

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API