Coffey v. Coffey

391 S.E.2d 40, 326 N.C. 586, 1990 N.C. LEXIS 234
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided May 10, 1990·No. No. 359PA89·Published·Cited by 11 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an action by a parent against her child for personal injuries received while she was a passenger in an automobile operated by the child. At the time of the accident the child was an unemancipated minor, but at the time of suit he had reached his majority. The Court of Appeals in a reasoned opinion by Judge Greene, concurred in by Judges Arnold and Lewis, concluded that the doctrine of parent-child immunity barred the suit and affirmed summary judgment entered for defendant in the Superior Court.1

After carefully considering the briefs and arguments of counsel, we have determined that we improvidently allowed plaintiff’s petition for further review.

Discretionary review improvidently allowed.

Footnotes

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Coffey v. Coffey, 391 S.E.2d 40, 326 N.C. 586, 1990 N.C. LEXIS 234 (N.C. 1990).

391 S.E.2d 40 (Coffey v. Coffey) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Ludemann v. BRADFORD CLINIC, INC.
652 S.E.2d 752 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2007)
Walker v. Walker
546 S.E.2d 625 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2001)
Delta Environmental Consultants of North Carolina, Inc. v. Wysong & Miles Co.
510 S.E.2d 690 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1999)
Strader v. Sunstates Corp.
500 S.E.2d 752 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1998)
Keith v. Northern Hospital District
499 S.E.2d 200 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1998)
House Healers Restorations, Inc. v. Ball
437 S.E.2d 383 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1993)
IRT Property Co. v. Papagayo, Inc.
435 S.E.2d 565 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1993)
Doe ex rel. Connolly v. Holt
418 S.E.2d 511 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1992)
Madry v. Madry
415 S.E.2d 74 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1992)