Legal Opinion

Dinkins v. Booe

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided June 10, 1960No. 389PublishedCited by 15 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWinboeNE, C. J.

Careful consideration of the record and case on appeal in case in hand fails to reveal prejudicial error.

Appellant Fred Driver’s exceptions 1, 2, 8, and 19, and appellant Booe’s exceptions 2, 4, and 13 are expressly abandoned by appellants. Fred Driver’s exceptions 9 and 18 are taken as abandoned, no reason or argument having been stated nor authorities cited in support of the assignments based upon them. Harmon v. Harmon, 245 N.C. 83, 95 S.E. 2d 355; Cotton Mills v. Local 584, 251 N.C. 240, 111 S.E. 2d 471.

Appellant Fred Driver assigned as error the court’s submission of the issue as to his…

2Cases cited24 opinions

  1. Hoke v. Atlantic Greyhound Corp.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1947
  2. Lane v. BryanSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1957
  3. In Re Will of HallSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1960
  4. Roberts v. HillSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1954
  5. Bogen v. . BogenSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1942

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

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. Curley v. General Valet Service, Inc.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1973
  2. Investment Properties of Asheville, Inc. v. AllenSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1972
  3. King v. HigginsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1967
  4. Roberts v. YoungCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1995
  5. Swicegood v. CooperSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1995

10 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