Dublin v. UCR, Inc.

449 S.E.2d 569, 337 N.C. 800
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided October 5, 1994·No. No. 361P94·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Motion by plaintiffs to dismiss the appeal by defendant (U-Can Rent, Inc. II) and third-party defendant (Voyager Property and Casualty Ins. Co.) for lack of substantial constitutional question allowed 5 October 1994. Petitions by defendant (U-Can Rent, Inc. II) and third-party defendant (Voyager Property and Casualty Ins. Co.) for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 denied 5 October 1994.

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

Dublin v. UCR, Inc., 449 S.E.2d 569, 337 N.C. 800 (N.C. 1994).

449 S.E.2d 569 (Dublin v. UCR, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Stetser v. Tap Pharmaceutical Products, Inc.
598 S.E.2d 570 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2004)
Pitts v. American Security Insurance
550 S.E.2d 179 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2001)
Frost v. Mazda Motor of America, Inc.
540 S.E.2d 324 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 2000)