Legal Opinion

Chewning v. Chewning

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided December 27, 1973No. 7320SC670PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

PARKER, Judge.

Plaintiff’s right of action being transitory, the substantive rights and liabilities of the parties are to be determined in accordance with the laws of South Carolina, the lex loci. Frisbee v. West, 260 N.C. 269, 132 S.E. 2d 609; Harper v. Harper, 225 N.C. 260, 34 S.E. 2d 185; Clodfelter v. Wells, 212 N.C. 823, 195 S.E. 11; Howard v. Howard, 200 N.C. 574, 158 S.E. 101. The suggestion that North Carolina law should control, because the only negligence alleged in plaintiff’s complaint was defendant’s failure to warn her of the defective condition of the tire and this negligence…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Howard v. . HowardSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1931
  2. Fulghum v. BleakleySupreme Court of South Carolina · 1935
  3. Farmer Ex Rel. Farmer v. FerrisSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1963
  4. Oshiek v. OshiekSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1964
  5. Harper v. . Harper and Wickham v. . HarperSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1945

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

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Lloyd v. Carnation Co.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1983
  2. Leonard v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1983
  3. Walters v. Tire Sales & Service, Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1981
  4. Frank v. FunkhouserCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2005
  5. Mosqueda v. MosquedaCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2012

1 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