Opinion · Nclaw North Carolina

PETITIONS FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW, 328 N.C. 569 (1991)

PETITIONS FOR DISCRETIONARY Rev., 328 N.C. 569 (1991), 328 N.C. 569 (N.C. 1991)

Type: Opinion
Court: Nclaw North Carolina
Jurisdiction: Nclaw
Date: 1991-01-01
Topic: general

PETITIONS FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW, 328 N.C. 569 (1991)Supreme Court of North Carolina 1991 ATLANTIC TOBACCO CO. v. HONEYCUTT No. 36P91 Case below: 101 N.C. App. 161 [101 N.C. App. 160] Petition by defendant (Joseph B. Honeycutt) for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 denied 3 April 1991.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed PETITIONS FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW, 328 N.C. 569 (1991). The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

PETITIONS FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW,328 N.C. 569(1991)

Supreme Court of North Carolina

1991

ATLANTIC TOBACCO CO. v. HONEYCUTT No. 36P91 Case below: 101 N.C. App. 161 [101 N.C. App. 160]

Petition by defendant (Joseph B. Honeycutt) for discretionary review pursuant to G.S.7A-31denied 3 April 1991.

BARBER v. BABCOCK WILCOX CONSTRUCTION CO. No. 131PA91 Case below:98 N.C. App. 203

Petition by defendants for discretionary review pursuant to G.S.7A-31allowed 3 April 1991.

BELL ARTHUR WATER CORP. v. N.C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION No. 76A91 Case below:101 N.C. App. 305

Petition by defendant for discretionary review pursuant to G.S.7A-31and Appellate Rule 16(b) as to additional issues denied 3 April 1991.

BRITT v. BRITT No. 438P90 Case below:99 N.C. App. 773

Petition by defendants for discretionary review pursuant to G.S.7A-31denied 3 April 1991.

BRITT v. SHARPE No. 424P90 Case below:99 N.C. App. 555

Petition by defendants for discretionary review pursuant to G.S.7A-31denied 3 April 1991.Page 570