In the Matter of Dula, 266A01.

Decision Date09 November 2001
Docket NumberNo. 266A01.,266A01.
Citation554 S.E.2d 336
PartiesIn the Matter of Micah Storm DULA, a minor child.
CourtNorth Carolina Supreme Court

Elizabeth M. Spillman, Lenoir, for petitioner-appellee Caldwell County Department of Social Services.

Austen D. Jud, Lenoir, for respondent-appellant Davida Dula.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

To continue reading

Request your trial
26 cases
  • State Farm Fire and Cas. Co. v. Darsie, COA03-40.
    • United States
    • North Carolina Court of Appeals
    • December 16, 2003
    ...These are set out clearly in Baggett v. Summerlin Ins. & Realty Inc., 143 N.C.App. 43, 545 S.E.2d 462 (2001),rev'd per curiam, 354 N.C. 347, 554 S.E.2d 336 (2001) (where a party has an opportunity to read an insurance policy under which he claims coverage, he is held to be on notice of thos......
  • Smith v. Baxter Int'l, Inc.
    • United States
    • North Carolina Court of Appeals
    • July 3, 2012
    ...348, 350, 546 S.E.2d 616, 618 (quoting Anderson v. Lincoln Constr. Co., 265 N.C. 431, 434, 144 S.E.2d 272, 274 (1965)), aff'd,354 N.C. 358, 554 S.E.2d 336 (2001). Unchallenged findings of fact are binding on this Court. Ferreyra v. Cumberland Cty., 175 N.C.App. 581, 583, 623 S.E.2d 825, 826......
  • Cobb v. Pa. Life Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • North Carolina Court of Appeals
    • September 6, 2011
    ...a duty to read them and ordinarily are charged with knowledge of their contents.”), rev'd for reasons stated in the dissent, 354 N.C. 347, 554 S.E.2d 336 (2001). Despite any alleged misrepresentations, “[w]here a party has reasonable opportunity to read the instrument in question, and the l......
  • D C Custom Freight, LLC v. Tammy A. Ross & Assocs., Inc.
    • United States
    • North Carolina Court of Appeals
    • September 1, 2020
    ...Realty, Inc. , 143 N.C. App. 43, 50-51, 545 S.E.2d 462, 467 (Tyson, J., dissenting), rev'd for reasons stated in the dissent , 354 N.C. 347, 554 S.E.2d 336 (2001). Failure to recommend additional insurance to cover a risk faced by the policyholder does not constitute negligence. See Baldwin......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT