Legal Opinion

Schloss v. Jamison

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided December 12, 1962No. 249PublishedCited by 70 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtParker, J.

Defendants have only one assignment of error, and that is the court erred in signing the order granting a temporary injunction. Defendants have no exceptions to the findings of fact and to the conclusions of law.

Where no exceptions have been taken to the findings of fact, such findings are presumed to be supported by competent evidence and are binding on appeal. Insurance Co. v. Trucking Co., 256 N.C. 721, 125 S.E. 2d 25; Goldsboro v. R.R., 246 N.C. 101, 97 S.E. 2d 486. However, the exception to the signing of the order presents the questions whether the facts found are sufficient to support…

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. Ohio Oil Co. v. ConwaySupreme Court of the United States · 1929
  2. City of Goldsboro v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1957
  3. G I Surplus Store, Inc. v. HunterSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1962
  4. Patterson v. Durham Hosiery MillsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1939
  5. Marshall v. Commissioners of Stanly CountySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1883

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

3Cited by70 opinions

  1. Koufman v. KoufmanSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1991
  2. In re T.N.H.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 2019
  3. In re E.H.P.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 2019
  4. In re Z.L.W.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 2019
  5. State v. BakerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1984

65 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