Williams v. Vonderau

653 S.E.2d 144
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Williams v. Vonderau. Read the opinion of the Court — 362 N.C. 76
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided December 7, 2007·No. No. 18A07.·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

On the issue of whether more than one incident of harassment is required before a trial court can enter a civil no-contact order under N.C.G.S. § 50C-1(6), the members of the Court are equally divided, with three members voting to affirm and three members voting to reverse. Accordingly, the decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed *145without precedential value. See State v. Harrison, 360 N.C. 394, 627 S.E.2d 461 (2006); Crawford v. Commercial Union Midwest Ins. Co., 356 N.C. 609, 572 S.E.2d 781 (2002).

The decision of the Court of Appeals that an appeal related to a civil no-contact order is moot once the order expires is reversed. See In re A.K., 360 N.C. 449, 628 S.E.2d 753 (2006).

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART.

Justice HUDSON 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

Williams v. Vonderau, 653 S.E.2d 144 (N.C. 2007).

653 S.E.2d 144 (Williams v. Vonderau) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Harrison
627 S.E.2d 461 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 2006)
Crawford v. COMMERCIAL UNION MIDWEST INS. COM.
572 S.E.2d 781 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 2002)
In re of A.K.
628 S.E.2d 753 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 2006)