Legal Opinion

Patterson v. Durham Hosiery Mills

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided February 1, 1939PublishedCited by 32 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSeawell, J.

1. One phase of this case came before this Court for a hearing at the Spring Term, and is reported as Patterson v. Hosiery Mills, ante, 24. At that time there was a three-to-three division of the Court, and, under our practice, the judgment of the court below stood affirmed, without authority as precedent. The plaintiffs now contend that the judgment of the court below, upon the hearing of the order to show cause why the injunction should not be continued to the hearing, is the law of the case, res adjudicata, and determines the matter at the final hearing.

The hearing upon the order to show…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Keller v. Wilson Co. Inc.Supreme Court of Delaware · 1936
  2. Greer v. City of AshevilleSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1894
  3. Fenner v. . TuckerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1938
  4. Weaver Power Co. v. Elk Mountain Mill Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1910

3Cited by32 opinions

  1. Schloss v. JamisonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1962
  2. Cox v. City of KinstonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1940
  3. Davison v. Parke, Austin & Lipscomb, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1941
  4. UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION v. DavisSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1960
  5. Morrison v. St. Anthony Hotel, San AntonioCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1956

27 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