Opinion · Nclaw North Carolina

CASES REPORTED WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION, 119 N.C. App. 442 (1995)

CASES REPORTED WITHOUT PUBLISHED Op., 119 N.C. App. 442 (1995), 119 N.C. App. 442 (N.C. Ct. App. 1995)

Type
Opinion
Court
Nclaw North Carolina
Jurisdiction
Nclaw
Date
1995-01-01
Topic
general

CASES REPORTED WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION, 119 N.C. App. 442 (1995)North Carolina Court of Appeals Filed 5 July 1995 [EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] CASES REPORTED WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION WINSTON v. DURHAM CITY Ind. Comm. Affirmed SCHOOLS (769724) No. 94-869 FILED 20 JUNE 1995 BEAVER v.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed CASES REPORTED WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION, 119 N.C. App. 442 (1995). The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

CASES REPORTED WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION,119 N.C. App. 442(1995)
North Carolina Court of Appeals
Filed 5 July 1995


CASES REPORTED WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION

WINSTON v. DURHAM CITY Ind. Comm. Affirmed SCHOOLS (769724) No. 94-869

FILED 20 JUNE 1995

BEAVER v. N.C. DEPT. OF Ind. Comm. Vacated E.H.N.R. (TA-11981) Remanded with No. 94-128 Instructions

BRYSON v. OLD MARTIN'S Cherokee No Error CREEK CHURCH (92CVS295) No. 94-619

DINKINS v. FEDERAL Ind. Comm. Affirmed PAPER BOARD CO. (112853) No. 94-844

GARCIA v. KOVOLENKO Cumberland Dismissed in part; No. 94-1360 (94CVD3914) Affirmed in part

JOHNSON v. CENTRAL Wake No Error CAROLINA REALTY (93CVS05274) No. 94-996

JOHNSON v. CITY OF Nash Affirmed ROCKY MOUNT (94CVS1085) No. 94-1249

LAWS v. WILLIAMS Gaston No Error No. 94-1059 (93CVS2375)

McGARITY v. McGARITY Guilford Affirmed No. 94-565 (89CVD7755)

McGARITY v. McGARITY Guilford Affirmed No. 94-853 (89CVD7755)

MINTON v. CALL Wilkes Affirmed No. 94-1013 (92SP114)

MORETZ v. MILLER Watauga Reversed No. 93-323 (91CVS452) Remanded

POWERS v. POWERS Pitt Affirmed No. 94-584 (85CVD262)

RICHARDSON v. BP OIL CO. Wake Dismissed No. 94-811 (94CVS2637)

STATE v. CODY Forsyth Affirmed No. 94-1096 (94CRS7552)

STATE v. COUNCIL Orange No Error No. 94-580 (92CRS9299)Page 443
  1. [EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] ↩