Pintacuda v. Zuckeberg

593 S.E.2d 776, 358 N.C. 211, 2004 N.C. LEXIS 197
Supreme Court of South Carolina·Decided April 2, 2004·No. No. 509A03·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

As to the issue on direct appeal, we reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals for the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion. [212] Further, we conclude that the petition for discretionary review as to the additional issues was improvidently allowed.

REVERSED; DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IMPROVIDENTLY ALLOWED.

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

Pintacuda v. Zuckeberg, 593 S.E.2d 776, 358 N.C. 211, 2004 N.C. LEXIS 197 (S.C. 2004).

593 S.E.2d 776 (Pintacuda v. Zuckeberg) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

RIEPER v. Pearce
690 S.E.2d 559 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2010)