Stanback v. Coble

229 S.E.2d 690, 291 N.C. 177, 1976 N.C. LEXIS 956

Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided November 4, 1976·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

229 S.E.2d 690 (1976) 291 N.C. 177

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

November 4, 1976.

Rufus L. Edmisten, Atty. Gen., William H. Boone, Associate Atty., for defendant.

Kluttz & Hamlin, for plaintiff.

*691 Petition by defendant for discretionary review under GS 7A-31, 30 N.C.App. 533, 227 S.E.2d 175. Denied.

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

229 S.E.2d 690 (1976) 291 N.C. 177

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

November 4, 1976.

Rufus L. Edmisten, Atty. Gen., William H. Boone, Associate Atty., for defendant.

Kluttz & Hamlin, for plaintiff.

*691 Petition by defendant for discretionary review under GS 7A-31, 30 N.C.App. 533, 227 S.E.2d 175. Denied.

Stanback v. Coble, 229 S.E.2d 690, 291 N.C. 177, 1976 N.C. LEXIS 956 (N.C. 1976).

Pincite

229 S.E.2d 690 (Stanback v. Coble) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.