Opinion · Supreme Court of North Carolina
Reese v. Barbee
350 N.C. 60
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Supreme Court of North Carolina
- Jurisdiction
- North Carolina
- Date
- 1999-02-05
- Topic
- general
How later courts describe this case
- "[The UM carrier] is not precluded from asserting the statute of limitations as a defense where plaintiff has not timely commenced her action against it, even though the defense may not be available to the tort-feasor."
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed Reese v. Barbee. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
- Cited by
- 12 opinions
PER CURIAM.
Chief Justice Mitchell and Associate Justices Parker and Wainwright voted to affirm and Associate Justices Frye, Lake and Orr voted to reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals. Accordingly, the decision of the Court of Appeals is left undisturbed and stands without precedential value. See Nesbit v. Howard, 333 N.C. 782, 429 S.E.2d 730 (1993); Kempson v. N.C. Dep’t of Human Resources, 328 N.C. 722, 403 S.E.2d 279 (1991).
AFFIRMED.
Associate Justice Martin did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.