Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
§

Doe v. Holt

103 N.C. App. 516 (N.C. Ct. App. 1991)
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
Doe v. Holt

2 Citing cases

  1. Doe v. Holt

    332 N.C. 90 (N.C. 1992)   Cited 14 times
    Holding that the parental immunity doctrine, as it exists in North Carolina, does not bar tort claims brought by unemancipated minors who have suffered injuries as a result of a parent's willful and malicious conduct

    6 ALR4th 1066. ON discretionary review of the decision of the Court of Appeals, 103 N.C. App. 516, 405 S.E.2d 807 (1991), reversing an order entered 27 August 1990, nunc pro tunc 9 August 1990, by Walker, J., in the Superior Court, FORSYTH County. Heard in the Supreme Court on 9 March 1992. David F. Tamer for the defendant appellant.

  2. Barnes v. Barnes

    603 N.E.2d 1337 (Ind. 1992)   Cited 31 times
    Holding that payments of plaintiff's medical expenses by defendant are not collateral source payments

    In recent years decisions from other jurisdictions have generally refused to apply parental immunity in cases alleging rape. Connolly v. Holt (1991), 103 N.C. App. 516, 405 S.E.2d 807; Hurst v. Capitell (1989), Ala., 539 So.2d 264; contra, Roller v. Roller (1905), 37 Wn. 242, 79 P. 788. Our nearby sister states have substantially limited or rejected parental tort immunity.