Opinion · Supreme Court of North Carolina

Coker v. DaimlerChrysler Corp.

360 N.C. 398

Type: Opinion
Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Date: 2006-04-07
Topic: bankruptcy

PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. Justice MARTIN did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Coker v. DaimlerChrysler Corp.. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by: 17 opinions

COKER v. DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORP.,360 N.C. 398(2006)

JAMES AND CHARLOTTE COKER, ROBERT AND REBECCA DARCONTE, AND DONALD AND

BONITA SHOE v. DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORPORATION.

No. 532A05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Filed April 7, 2006.

Appeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. §7A-30(2) from the decision of a divided panel of the Court of Appeals,172 N.C. App. ___,617 S.E.2d 306(2005), affirming an order and opinion dismissing plaintiffs' amended complaint entered on 5 January 2004 by Judge Ben F. Tennille in Superior Court, Rowan County. Heard in the Supreme Court 16 March 2006.

Wallace Graham, P.A., by Cathy A. Williams andMona Lisa Wallace; Wyrick Robbins Yates Ponton LLP, byK. Edward Greene; and Shipman Wright, L.L.P., by Gary K.Shipman, for plaintiff-appellants.Smith Moore LLP, by Sidney S. Eagles, Jr. and Allison O.Van Laningham, and Bush Seyferth Kethledge Paige PLLC,by Raymond M. Kethledge, for defendant-appellee.Jonathan Wall, Counsel for the North Carolina Academy ofTrial Lawyers, amicus curiae.Womble Carlyle Sandridge Rice, PLLC, by Burley B.Mitchell, Jr. and Sean E. Andrussier, for the NationalAssociation of Manufacturers and the American Tort ReformAssociation, amici curiae.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

Justice MARTIN did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.Page 399