Legal Opinion

Hendricks v. Leslie Fay, Inc.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided February 28, 1968No. 357PublishedCited by 37 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBobbitt, J.

If the facts alleged by plaintiff are established, the tortious conduct of Norman and of Vallon, acting jointly and concurrently as agents of Fay, was responsible for plaintiff’s injury and damage. Assuming, but not deciding, that Norman was the agent of Pinkerton and not the agent of Fay, and that the tortious conduct of Norman, as agent of Pinkerton, and of Vallon, as agent of Fay, was responsible for plaintiff’s injury and damage, both Fay and Pinkerton would be liable to plaintiff as joint tort-feasors. However, Fay does not seek contribution from Pinkerton as an alleged joint tort-feasor…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Hayes v. City of WilmingtonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1956
  2. W. T. Grant Co. v. OwensCourt of Appeals of Virginia · 1928
  3. Clinchfield Coal Corp. v. ReddSupreme Court of Virginia · 1918
  4. Edwards v. HamillSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1964
  5. Adams v. F. W. Woolworth Co.New York Supreme Court · 1932

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

3Cited by37 opinions

  1. Fifth Club, Inc. v. RamirezTexas Supreme Court · 2006
  2. Medley v. North Carolina Department of CorrectionSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1992
  3. Willoughby v. KENNETH W. WILKINS, MD, PACourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1983
  4. Kinsey v. SpannCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2000
  5. Rockwell v. Sun Harbor Budget SuitesNevada Supreme Court · 1996

32 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