Legal Opinion

McCulloh v. Catawba College

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided February 4, 1966No. 615PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSharp, J.

The first question to be considered is whether, under the facts presented, the judge had authority to grant defendants’ motion for a rehearing on the grounds of newly discovered evidence.

After an appeal from an award of the Industrial Commission has been duly docketed in the Superior Court, the judge “has the power in a proper case to order a rehearing of the proceeding by the Industrial Commission on the ground of newly discovered evidence, and to that end to remand the proceeding to the Commission.” Byrd v. Lumber Co., 207 N.C. 253, 255, 176 S.E. 572, 573. (Italics ours.) Accord, Moore v.…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Johnson v. . R. R.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1913
  2. Hall v. Thomason Chevrolet, Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1965
  3. Butts v. . Montague Bros.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1935
  4. Tindall v. American Furniture Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1939
  5. Worsley v. S. &. W. Rendering Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1954

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

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Hendrix v. Linn-Corriher Corp.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1986
  2. Bailey v. North Carolina Department of Mental HealthSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1968
  3. Bailey v. North Carolina Department of Mental HealthCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1968
  4. Harris v. FRANK L. BLUM CONSTRUCTION COMPANYCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1971
  5. Mason v. North Carolina State Highway CommissionSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1968

7 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