Legal Opinion

Munchak Corp. v. Caldwell

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided January 6, 1981No. 107PublishedCited by 48 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

BRANCH, Chief Justice.

The sole question presented for review is whether the trial court erred in permitting defendant to offer into evidence the transcript of the prior proceeding without first laying the proper foundation.

A transcript of testimony given at a prior trial or proceeding, if offered to prove the truth of the matters stated therein, is hearsay. State v. Smith, 291 N.C. 505, 231 S.E. 2d 663 (1977); Smith v. Moore, 149 N.C. 185, 62 S.E. 892 (1908). See generally 1 Stansbury’s North Carolina Evidence § 145 (Brandis Rev. 1973). Nevertheless, the necessity and reliability of such…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. State v. SmithSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1977
  2. Wood-Hopkins Contracting Co. v. North Carolina State Ports AuthoritySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1974
  3. McLean v. KeithSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1952
  4. Smith v. . MooreSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1908
  5. Cameron v. CameronSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1950

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

3Cited by48 opinions

  1. In re T.N.H.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 2019
  2. McKinnon v. CV INDUSTRIES, INC.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 2011
  3. Harris v. HarrisSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1983
  4. McDonald v. The Bank of N.Y. Mellon Tr. Co.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 2018
  5. Ball v. MaynardCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2007

43 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