State v. Charlotte Liberty Mutual Insurance
Opinion
Justice Brock, being absent on account of illness, did not participate in the consideration and decision of this case. The remaining six justices are equally divided as to whether the Court of Appeals erred in concluding that each summons issued failed to charge a criminal offense specified by G.S. 163-270 or G.S. 163-278.19(a) and in affirming the orders of the trial divisions quashing each summons. Therefore, in accordance with our practice, the decision of the Court of Appeals is left undisturbed; but it should not be considered to have precedential value. Mortgage Co. v. Real Estate, Inc., 297 N.C. 696, 256 S.E. 2d 688 (1979); Townsend v. Railway Co., 296 N.C. 246, 249 S.E. 2d 801 (1978); State v. Johnson, 286 N.C. 331, 210 S.E. 2d 260 (1974); see also State v. Greene, 298 N.C. 268, 258 S.E. 2d 71 (1979), and cases therein cited; Starr v. Clapp, 298 N.C. 275, 258 S.E. 2d 348 (1979).
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
258 S.E.2d 343 (State v. Charlotte Liberty Mutual Insurance) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.