B & F SLOSMAN v. SONOPRESS INC.
| Decision Date | 06 March 2002 |
| Docket Number | No. 65P02.,65P02. |
| Citation | 560 S.E.2d 795,355 N.C. 283 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | B & F SLOSMAN, a North Carolina Corporation v. SONOPRESS, INC., a Delaware Corporation. |
Albert L. Sneed, Jr., Asheville, Carolyn Clark, for B & F Slosman.
Robert E. Dungan, Asheville, Howard A. Wintner, New York, NY, for Sonopress.
Prior report: ___ N.C.App. ___, 557 S.E.2d 176.
ORDER
Upon consideration of the petition filed by Plaintiff in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:
"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 6th day of March 2002."
To continue reading
Request your trial
8 cases
-
Whitacre Partnership v. Biosignia, Inc.
...inconsistent positions." B & F Slosman v. Sonopress, Inc., 148 N.C.App. 81, 88, 557 S.E.2d 176, 181 (2001), disc. rev. denied, 355 N.C. 283, 560 S.E.2d 795 (2002). Like equitable estoppel, and unlike judicial estoppel, quasi-estoppel requires mutuality of parties; the doctrine may not be as......
-
Sigmon v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Co.
...inconsistent positions." B & F Slosman v. Sonopress, Inc., 148 N.C.App. 81, 88, 557 S.E.2d 176, 181 (2001), disc. rev. denied, 355 N.C. 283, 560 S.E.2d 795 (2002). First, contrary to State Farm's argument, it appears that equitable estoppel and quasi-estoppel may apply in this action, with ......
-
Beck v. Beck
...positions. B & F Slosman v. Sonopress, Inc., 148 N.C.App. 81, 88, 557 S.E.2d 176, 181 (2001), disc. review denied, 355 N.C. 283, 560 S.E.2d 795 (2002). In Beck I, this Court instructed the trial court that, in conducting its quasi-estoppel analysis, it should "determine whether plaintiff ra......
-
Holcomb v. Colonial Associates, LLC
...or right to relief." B & F Slosman v. Sonopress, Inc., 148 N.C.App. 81, 84, 557 S.E.2d 176, 179 (2001), disc. review denied, 355 N.C. 283, 560 S.E.2d 795 (2002). "The trial court should deny a motion for directed verdict when it finds any evidence more than a scintilla to support plaintiff'......
Request a trial to view additional results