Legal Opinion

Gardner v. Gardner

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided July 7, 1992No. 913SC675PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

WELLS, Judge.

We begin and close our review of this appeal, as we must, by revisiting Johnson v. Ruark Obstetrics, 89 N.C. App. 154, 365 S.E.2d 909 (1988), modified and affirmed, 327 N.C. 283, 395 S.E.2d 85 (1990).

In Ruark, plaintiff mother and father’s claim for severe emotional distress were grounded in the events surrounding the death of their full-term child immediately before delivery. The case came to this Court on appeal from the trial court’s order allowing defend*637ant’s N.C. Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) motion for failure to state a claim. After a careful and lengthy analysis of…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Johnson v. Ruark Obstetrics & Gynecology Associates, P.A.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1990
  2. Hairston v. Alexander Tank & Equipment Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1984
  3. Azzolino v. DingfelderSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1985

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Andersen v. BaccusSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1994
  2. Gardner v. GardnerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1993
  3. Andersen v. BaccusCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1993
  4. Sorrells v. M.Y.B. Hospitality VenturesCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1993
  5. Butz v. HolderCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1993

5 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