Open App →
Home › Case briefs › Family Law

Edmunds v. Edmunds

Supreme Court of North Carolina · 2009 · Family Law
Family Lawfamily lawappealper curiamaffirmed

Facts

The opinion text identifies the parties as Donald P. Edmunds and Phyllis M. Edmunds. It provides no factual background regarding their dispute. The only information in the majority opinion is the identity of counsel and that the case was decided by the Supreme Court of North Carolina. No additional facts relevant to any legal issue are stated in the opinion text provided.

Issue

The specific legal question before the court cannot be determined from the text provided. The opinion contains only a per curiam affirmance without stating the issue.

Rule

No express black-letter rule or legal test is stated in the opinion text provided. The court's only stated disposition is that the judgment is affirmed.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

  • The court's holding and reasoning
  • Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
  • 10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case
Sign up free to see more →
Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.
In a divorce appeal from Raleigh, Jenna Cole argues that a one-sentence state supreme court opinion reading only "AFFIRMED" establishes a rule that trial courts must always divide a family business equally between spouses. Her opponent, Marcus Dyer, responds that the opinion cannot be cited for that specific proposition because it gives no facts or reasoning.

Which is the strongest assessment of Jenna's argument based solely on that opinion text?

Explanation. The majority opinion provides only a per curiam disposition stating "AFFIRMED." From that text alone, no specific issue, rule, facts, or reasoning can be extracted. Therefore, the only supportable proposition is that the lower court's judgment stands, not that the court adopted a particular family-law rule. (Derived from Edmunds v. Edmunds (n.d.).)