Legal Opinion

Dunkley v. Shoemate

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided June 25, 1999No. 178PA98PublishedCited by 17 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ORR, Justice.

The sole question presented in this case is whether the trial court erred in failing to remove the law firm of Patterson, Dilthey, Clay & Bryson, L.L.P., as counsel for defendant Lee H. Shoemate. Pertinent facts and circumstances in this case are as follows.

On 5 January 1989, Shoemate, representing that he had received his undergraduate degree from the University of Texas and that he was an M.D./Ph.D. candidate at Harvard Medical School expecting to graduate in August of 1989, applied for a psychiatry residency at the University of North Carolina Hospitals at Chapel Hill (“UNC”).…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Johnson v. Amethyst Corp.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1995
  2. University of North Carolina v. ShoemateCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1994
  3. Dunkley v. ShoemateCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1996
  4. Dunkley v. ShoemateSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1997
  5. Johnson v. Amethyst Corp.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1996

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

3Cited by17 opinions

  1. Harris v. Ray Johnson Construction Co.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 2000
  2. Stamm v. SalomonCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2001
  3. Finch v. Covil Corp.District Court, M.D. North Carolina · 2019
  4. Morin v. SharpCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2001
  5. In re S.N.W.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 2010

12 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