Caudle v. Ray

4 Citing cases

  1. Thaxton v. Stevens

    634 S.E.2d 272 (N.C. Ct. App. 2006)

    Id. A trial court's conclusion as to the extent of an attorney's authority must be supported by some evidence in the record. See Caudle v. Ray, 50 N.C. App. 641, 645, 274 S.E.2d 880, 883 (1981) (vacating consent judgment signed by attorney because "[t]he presumption of authority [of an attorney to act for his client], standing alone, was not sufficient to sustain the order when countered by plenary evidence in rebuttal"). Here, the Thaxtons submitted two affidavits to the trial court, one by Mr. Thaxton and the other by Ms. Thaxton, each stating that they never explicitly authorized Mr. Egerton's firm to settle their claims without their permission.

  2. Montgomery v. Montgomery

    110 N.C. App. 234 (N.C. Ct. App. 1993)   Cited 11 times
    Discussing "the consent by which a defendant waives personal jurisdiction" as a "consent to personal jurisdiction and a waiver of the requirements usually necessary to invoke that jurisdiction"

    Yet the record reflects that the Agreed Order was signed by the attorneys for each party. An attorney acting on behalf of his or her client is presumed to have authority to do so at the request of the client. Caudle v. Ray, 50 N.C. App. 641, 644, 274 S.E.2d 880, 882 (1981), appeal after remand, 69 N.C. App. 543, 316 S.E.2d 909 (1984). Moreover, this Court has previously refused to find that a foreign judgment violates public policy simply because one party alleges that he has not consented thereto.

  3. Caudle v. Ray

    316 S.E.2d 909 (N.C. Ct. App. 1984)   Cited 1 times

    On initial appeal, this Court, after finding no evidence in the record to support the trial court's conclusion that Attorney Purser acted within the scope of his authority, remanded the cause for further proceedings. Caudle v. Ray, 50 N.C. App. 641, 645, 274 S.E.2d 880, 883 (1981). On remand, the trial court once again denied plaintiffs' motion to set aside the consent judgment.

  4. In re Election of Commissioners

    287 S.E.2d 451 (N.C. Ct. App. 1982)   Cited 1 times

    Swygert v. Swygert, 46 N.C. App. 173, 180, 264 S.E.2d 902, 907 (1980). Since the record in the present case contains no exceptions or assignments of error, no question is presented to this Court for review, Caudle v. Ray, 50 N.C. App. 641, 274 S.E.2d 880 (1981), other than such questions as the regularity of the judgment, if those questions are properly raised in the brief. State v. McMorris, 290 N.C. 286, 225 S.E.2d 553 (1976).