Miller v. Brooks
| Decision Date | 07 February 1997 |
| Docket Number | No. 345P96,345P96 |
| Citation | Miller v. Brooks, 483 S.E.2d 172, 345 N.C. 344 (N.C. 1997) |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | Terry Stuart MILLER v. Gregory F. BROOKS, Michael Craig Hite, Brooks Investigations, Inc., Annette K. Miller and Pierino "Pat" Massaroni. |
Andrew A. Vanore, III, Raleigh, John W. Kirkman, Jr., Greensboro, for Brooks et al.
M. Douglas Berry, Greensboro, for Miller.
Prior report: 123 N.C.App. 20, 472 S.E.2d 350.
ORDER
Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendants in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. § 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:
"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
2 cases
-
Food Lion v. Capital Cities
... ... Maynard, Michelle B. Goodman, Christopher A. Bracey, JENNER & BLOCK, Washington, D.C.; William H. Jeffress, Jr., Randall J. Turk, MILLER, CASSIDY, LARROCA & LEWIN, Washington, D.C.; Alan N. Braverman, Nathan Siegel, ABC, INCORPORATED, New York, New York; Kathleen M. Sullivan, STANFORD ... City of Columbia, 409 S.E.2d 797, 802 (S.C. Ct. App. 1991). Accordingly, consent is a defense to a claim of trespass. See, e.g., Miller v. Brooks, 472 S.E.2d 350, 355 (N.C. Ct. App. 1996), review denied, 483 S.E.2d 172 (N.C. 1997). Even consent gained by misrepresentation is sometimes ... ...
-
Proctor v. JOHNSON BODY SHOP, INC.
... ... a showing that thedefendant acted with 'reckless indifference to the likelihood' that his or her acts 'will cause severe emotional distress.'" Miller v. Brooks, 123 N.C. App. 20, 29, 472 S.E.2d 350, 356 (1996) (quoting Dickens v. Puryear, 302 N.C. 437, 452, 276 S.E.2d 325, 335 (1981)), disc. review ... ...
1 books & journal articles
-
Chapter 22 INVASION OF PRIVACY
...4 Harv. L. Rev. 193 (1890).[2] Miller v. Brooks, 123 N.C. App. 20, 26, 472 S.E.2d 350 (1996), disc. review denied, 345 N.C. 344, 483 S.E.2d 172 (1997).[3] Hall v. Post, 323 N.C. 259, 372 S.E.2d 711 (1988). See also N.C.P.I. - Civ. 800.70, fn 1.[4] Renwick v. News & Observer Pub. Co., 310 N.......