Opinion · Supreme Court of North Carolina
Cannon v. Miller
313 N.C. 324
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Supreme Court of North Carolina
- Jurisdiction
- North Carolina
- Date
- 1985-02-27
- Topic
- litigation
How later courts describe this case
- holding that this Court has a “responsibility to follow” decisions issued by our Supreme Court
- holding that this Court lacks authority to overrule decisions of our Supreme Court and possesses a "responsibility to follow those decisions, until otherwise ordered by the Supreme Court"
- holding that the Court of Appeals lacks the authority to overrule decisions of the Supreme Court of North Carolina and has a “responsibility to follow those decisions, until otherwise ordered by the Supreme Court”
- holding that the Court of Appeals lacked the authority to overrule decisions of the Supreme Court of North Carolina and has, instead, a “responsibility to follow those decisions, until otherwise ordered by the Supreme Court”
- holding the Court of Appeals has a "responsibility to follow" decisions of the Supreme Court, "until otherwise ordered" by our Supreme Court
- iterating that this Court does not have the authority to overrule decisions of the Supreme Court of North Carolina
- holding that the Court of Appeals, after abolishing two tort causes of actions, "acted under a misapprehension of its authority to overrule decisions of the Supreme Court of North Carolina and its responsibility to follow those decisions, until otherwise ordered by the Supreme Court"
- holding the Court of Appeals has no authority to overrule decisions of this Court
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed Cannon v. Miller. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
- Authority status
- pending
- Cited by
- 93 opinions
ORDER
)
IT appearing that the panel of Judges of the Court of Appeals to which this case was assigned has acted under a misapprehension of its authority to overrule decisions of the Supreme Court of North Carolina and its responsibility to follow those decisions, until otherwise ordered by the Supreme Court.
It is therefore ordered that the petition for discretionary review is allowed for the sole purpose of vacating the decision of the Court of Appeals purporting to abolish the causes of action for Alienation of Affections and Criminal Conversation.
The decision of the Court of Appeals is vacated. The case is remanded to the Court of Appeals for entry of an order reversing the order of the trial court granting summary judgment in favor of defendant and remanding the case to the Superior Court of PlTT County for trial.
This the 27th day of February, 1985.
Vaughn, J.For the Court