Hamel v. Young Spring & Wire Corp.

183 S.E.2d 687, 279 N.C. 511, 1971 N.C. LEXIS 868
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedOctober 5, 1971
StatusPublished

This text of 183 S.E.2d 687 (Hamel v. Young Spring & Wire Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Hamel v. Young Spring & Wire Corp., 183 S.E.2d 687, 279 N.C. 511, 1971 N.C. LEXIS 868 (N.C. 1971).

Opinion

183 S.E.2d 687 (1971)
279 N.C. 511

Reginald S. HAMEL, Ancillary Administrator of the Estate of William Thomas McDowell, Jr.
v.
YOUNG SPRING & WIRE CORP. et al.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 5, 1971.

Claude R. Dunbar, Hunter M. Jones, for plaintiff.

John H. Small, R. C. Carmichael, Jr., for defendants Young Spring & Wire Corp., Paul Handeman, Inc., and Daybrook-Ottawa Corp.

Carpenter, Golding, Crews & Meekins, Michael K. Gordon, for defendant Twin-States Truck Equipment Co.

Petition for writ of certiorari to review the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals, 182 S.E.2d 839.

Denied.

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

Related

Hamel v. YOUNG SPRING & WIRE CORPORATION
182 S.E.2d 839 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1971)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
183 S.E.2d 687, 279 N.C. 511, 1971 N.C. LEXIS 868, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hamel-v-young-spring-wire-corp-nc-1971.