Warfield v. Hicks

Warfield v. Hicks, 374 S.E.2d 602 (N.C. 1988)

Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina · State Highest Courts
Decided: December 8, 1988
Docket: No. 424P88
Citations: 374 S.E.2d 602323 N.C. 629

Cited by 17 2 descriptions by later courts

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Petition by plaintiffs for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 denied 8 December 1988.

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 2 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

(defendant’s “general unspecific statement of opinion about the potential consequences of using beetle infested beams” did not constitute misrepresentation)

Rowan Cnty. Bd. of Educ. v. United States Gypsum Co., 418 S.E.2d 648 (N.C. 1992)
(claim for negligent construction of a house)

Mason v. Yontz, 403 S.E.2d 536 (N.C. Ct. App. 1991)

Cited by 17 cases

View all citing references →

Relies on it most ⓘ

Eastover Ridge, L.L.C v. Metric Constructors, Inc.533 S.E.2d 827 (N.C. Ct. App. 2000)
Jacobs v. Central Transport, Inc.891 F. Supp. 1088 (E.D.N.C. 1995)
THE CITY OF HIGH POINT, NORTH CAROLINA v. SUEZ TREATMENT SOLUTIONS INC.No. 1:19-cv-00540 (M.D.N.C. Sept. 9, 2020)
Rowan County Board of Education v. United States Gypsum Co.418 S.E.2d 648 (N.C. 1992)
Forbes v. Par Ten Group, Inc.394 S.E.2d 643 (N.C. Ct. App. 1990)
Lord v. Customized Consulting Specialty, Inc.643 S.E.2d 28 (N.C. Ct. App. 2007)

Most recent

THE CITY OF HIGH POINT, NORTH CAROLINA v. SUEZ TREATMENT SOLUTIONS INC.No. 1:19-cv-00540 (M.D.N.C. Sept. 9, 2020)
Akzo Nobel Coatings Inc. v. Rogers2011 NCBC 41 (N.C. Bus. Ct. 2011)
Gunn v. Laboratory Corp. of Am.2011 NCBC 35 (N.C. Bus. Ct. 2011)
Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.2011 NCBC 30 (N.C. Bus. Ct. 2011)
Williams v. HOUSES OF DISTINCTION, INC.714 S.E.2d 438 (N.C. Ct. App. 2011)
Lord v. Customized Consulting Specialty, Inc.643 S.E.2d 28 (N.C. Ct. App. 2007)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

`/`	Focus the search box
`j` `k`	Next / previous result
`Enter`	Open the selected result
`x`	Add / remove the selected result from the download list
`n` `p`	Next / previous search term in a case
`c`	Copy the citation of the current case
`+` `−`	Larger / smaller reading text
`?`	Show this list