holding that " party objecting to an order granting or denying a motion in limine, in order to preserve the evidentiary issue for appeal, is required to object to the evidence at the time it is offered at the trial (where the motion was denied) or attempt to introduce the evidence at the trial (where the motion was granted)"
Summary of this case from State v. Early1997
holding that " party objecting to an order granting or denying a motion in limine, in order to preserve the evidentiary issue for appeal, is required to object to the evidence at the time it is offered at the trial (where the motion was denied) or attempt to introduce the evidence at the trial (where the motion was granted)"
Summary of this case from State v. Earlyholding that " party objecting to an order granting or denying a motion in limine, in order to preserve the evidentiary issue for appeal, is required to object to the evidence at the time it is offered at the trial (where the motion was denied) or attempt to introduce the evidence at the trial (where the motion was granted)"
Summary of this case from State v. Earlyruling on motion in limine "preliminary" and objection to order granting or denying motion insufficient to preserve evidentiary issue for appeal
Summary of this case from Heatherly v. Industrial Health CouncilFull title:PETITIONS FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW
Court:Supreme Court of North Carolina
Date published: Jan 1, 1997
This case is governed by the previous version of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 6-19.1, which did not allow for the…
Town of Spencer v. Town of East SpencerFinally, we note that we express no opinion on whether Spencer had standing to bring suit. See Town of Seven…