Home/Supreme Court of North Carolina/Stanford v. Paris

Stanford v. Paris

686 S.E.2d 157, 2009 N.C. LEXIS 979, 2009 WL 3404236
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Stanford v. Paris. Read the opinion of the Court — 364 N.C. 306 →
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided October 14, 2009·No. 208PA09·Published

Opinion

686 S.E.2d 157 (2009)

STANFORD, et al
v.
PARIS, et al.

No. 208PA09.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 14, 2009.

Donald M. Stanford, Jr., for Stanford, et al.

Lacy M. Presnell, III, Raleigh, for Jean S. Mann, et al.

James K. Pendergrass, Raleigh, for Edward & Lindsay Mann.

Robert Epting, Chapel Hill, for Orange Water & Sewer.

Robert B. McNeill, Charlotte, for Margaret Pless, et al., Kenneth C. Haywood, Raleigh, for Margaret Pless.

Zipporah Edwards, Charlotte, for Margaret Pless, Paris Respondent.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 12th of October 2009 by Amicus (N.C. Advocates for Justice) for Leave to File Amicus Curiae Brief:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference this the 14th of October 2009."

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

Stanford v. Paris, 686 S.E.2d 157, 2009 N.C. LEXIS 979, 2009 WL 3404236 (N.C. 2009).

686 S.E.2d 157 (Stanford v. Paris) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.