Piro v. McKeever

794 S.E.2d 501, 369 N.C. 291, 2016 N.C. LEXIS 1132
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided December 21, 2016·No. 93A16·Published·Cited by 20 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

■ In this case we consider whether plaintiff’s complaint sufficiently alleged claims for negligent infliction of emotional distress and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Because the members of the Court are equally divided as to both issues, the holding of the Court of Appeals is left undisturbed and stands affirmed without precedential value. See, e.g., State v. Long, 365 N.C. 5, 705 S.E.2d 735 (2011) (per curiam); State v. Greene, 298 N.C. 268, 258 S.E.2d 71 (1979) (per curiam).

AFFIRMED.

Justice ERVIN did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.

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

Piro v. McKeever, 794 S.E.2d 501, 369 N.C. 291, 2016 N.C. LEXIS 1132 (N.C. 2016).

794 S.E.2d 501 (Piro v. McKeever) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Thomas v. Elis
W.D. North Carolina, 2024
Townes v. Portfolio Recovery Assocs., LLC
Supreme Court of North Carolina, 2022
Torres v. Ishee
W.D. North Carolina, 2022
Ellis v. Masscegee
W.D. North Carolina, 2022
State v. Dew
Supreme Court of North Carolina, 2021
Davis v. Gossnell
W.D. North Carolina, 2021
LeMaitre v. Grindstaff
W.D. North Carolina, 2020
City of Charlotte v. Univ. Fin. Props., LLC
Supreme Court of North Carolina, 2020
Hamlet H.M.A., LLC v. Hernandez
Supreme Court of North Carolina, 2019
State v. Royster
Supreme Court of North Carolina, 2019
Sykes v. Health Network Solutions, Inc.
828 S.E.2d 467 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 2019)