Opinion · Nclaw North Carolina

CASES REPORTED WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINIONS, 145 N.C. App. 502 (2001)

145 N.C. App. 502

Type
Opinion
Court
Nclaw North Carolina
Jurisdiction
Nclaw
Date
2001-01-01
Topic
general

CASES REPORTED WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINIONS, 145 N.C. App. 502 (2001)North Carolina Court of Appeals Filed 7 August 2001 [EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] FILED 7 AUGUST 2001 CARDEN v. LAMBERT Orange Affirmed No. 00-94 (97CVS696) EMBLER v. CITY OF LENOIR Caldwell Affirmed No. 99-1608 (99CVS533) EMBLER v. CITY OF LENOIR Caldwell Remanded No. 00-811 (99CVS721) GODWIN v.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed CASES REPORTED WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINIONS, 145 N.C. App. 502 (2001). The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

CASES REPORTED WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINIONS,145 N.C. App. 502(2001)
North Carolina Court of Appeals
Filed 7 August 2001
FILED 7 AUGUST 2001
CARDEN v. LAMBERT Orange Affirmed No. 00-94 (97CVS696)

EMBLER v. CITY OF LENOIR Caldwell Affirmed No. 99-1608 (99CVS533)

EMBLER v. CITY OF LENOIR Caldwell Remanded No. 00-811 (99CVS721)

GODWIN v. BARBOUR Johnston Affirmed No. 00-792 (94CVD2195)

GUILFORD CO. EX REL. Guilford Vacated and remanded WILLIAMS v. WILLIAMS (93CVD2033) No. 00-1161

HENDERSON v. TELECHECK Mecklenburg Affirmed RECOVERY SERVS., INC. (99CVD6332) No. 00-553

IN RE COOPER Yancey Affirmed No. 00-1185 (99J56)

IN RE CRAIN Durham Affirmed No. 00-1124 (99J27)

IN RE FOSTER Durham Affirmed in part, No. 00-464 (98J44- vacated in part and 469(TPR)) remanded to the trial court

JONES v. FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP. Guilford Appeal dismissed No. 00-845 (00CVS158)

KEMP v. KEMP Guilford Affirmed in part, No. 99-84-3 (94CVD6673) remanded in part

LAMBERT v. CARDEN Orange Dismissed No. 00-537 (99CVS1220)

LANDSBERGER v. LANDSBERGER Guiford Dismissed No. 00-874 (98CVD8697)

MARCUM v. EDWARDS Harnett Reversed and remanded No. 00-158 (97CVS00083)

MEEHAN v. CABLE Macon Affirmed No. 00-752 (95CVS185)

NIMS v. N.C. FARM BUREAU Watauga Affirmed MUT. INS. CO. (99CVS261) No. 00-865Page 503
  1. [EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] ↩