Pataky v. Pataky
602 S.E.2d 360, 359 N.C. 65, 2004 N.C. LEXIS 1120
Opinion
As to the appeal of right based on the dissenting opinion, we affirm the majority decision of the Court of Appeals. We conclude that the petition for discretionary review as to an additional issue was improvidently allowed.
AFFIRMED; DISCRETIONARY .REVIEW IMPROVIDENTLY ALLOWED.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Pataky v. Pataky, 602 S.E.2d 360, 359 N.C. 65, 2004 N.C. LEXIS 1120 (N.C. 2004).
602 S.E.2d 360 (Pataky v. Pataky) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Brown v. Miller
Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2025
Clute v. Gosney
Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2023
Cash v. Cash
Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2022
Jackson v. Jackson
Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2021
Walton v. Walton
822 S.E.2d 780 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2018)
Malone v. Hutchinson-Malone
784 S.E.2d 206 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2016)
Lasecki v. Lasecki
786 S.E.2d 286 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2016)
Upchurch v. Upchurch
Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2014
Gray v. Peele
761 S.E.2d 739 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2014)
Andrews v. Andrews
719 S.E.2d 128 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2011)
Balawejder v. Balawejder
721 S.E.2d 679 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2011)
Metz v. Metz
711 S.E.2d 737 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2011)
Head v. Mosier
677 S.E.2d 191 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2009)