Opinion · Supreme Court of North Carolina

Munn v. North Carolina State University

Munn v. N.C. State U. (periodical titles), 360 N.C. 353 (N.C. 2006)

Type
Opinion
Court
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jurisdiction
North Carolina
Date
2006-03-03
Topic
general

*354 PER CURIAM. As to the issue on direct appeal, we reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals for the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion. Further, we conclude that the petition for discretionary review as to additional issues was improvidently allowed. REVERSED; DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IMPROVIDENTLY ALLOWED.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Munn v. North Carolina State University. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
17 opinions
MUNN v. N.C. STATE UNIVERSITY,360 N.C. 353(2006)
HARRY E. MUNN, JR. v. NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY.
No. 567A05.
Supreme Court of North Carolina.
Filed March 3, 2006.
Appeal and Error; Damages and Remedies — breach ofcontract — nominal damages — improperassignments of error — failure to object toinstructions
A decision of the Court of Appeals awarding plaintiff university professor a new trial on the issue of damages in an action for breach of a reemployment contract in which the jury awarded plaintiff nominal damages of one dollar is reversed for the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion that plaintiff's assignments of error violated the Rules of Appellate Procedure and plaintiff neither objected to nor assigned error to the jury instructions.
Appeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. §7A-30(2) from the decision of a divided panel of the Court of Appeals,173 N.C. App. ___,617 S.E.2d 335(2005), vacating an order denying plaintiff's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or a new trial entered 19 December 2003 by Judge J.B. Allen, Jr. in Superior Court, Wake County, and remanding for a new trial on damages only. On 3 November 2005, the Supreme Court allowed defendant's petition for discretionary review as to additional issues. Heard in the Supreme Court 15 February 2006.
Unti Lumsden LLP, by Michael L. Unti and Sharon L.Smith, for plaintiff-appellee.Roy Cooper, Attorney General, by John P. Scherer II andKimberly D. Potter, Assistant Attorneys General, fordefendant-appellant.Page 354
PER CURIAM.
As to the issue on direct appeal, we reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals for the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion. Further, we conclude that the petition for discretionary review as to additional issues was improvidently allowed.

REVERSED; DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IMPROVIDENTLY ALLOWED.