Jeffries v. Moore
| Decision Date | 27 June 2002 |
| Docket Number | No. 147PA02.,147PA02. |
| Citation | 565 S.E.2d 665 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | Sharn M. JEFFRIES v. Tatjana Thomas MOORE and Carl Jonathan Moore, Jr. |
Leigh A. Peek, Hillsborough, for Tatjana and Carl Moore.
John D. Loftin, Hillsborough, for Jeffries.
Prior report: 148 N.C.App. 364, 559 S.E.2d 217.
ORDER
Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendants in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:
"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 27th day of June 2002."
Defendant shall forthwith submit an appeal bond to this Court, as provided by AppellateRule 17(b).The bond may be in cash or by a written undertaking with good and sufficient surety in the sum of $250.00.
Therefore the case is docketed as of the date of this order's certification.Briefs of the respective parties shall be...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 7-day Trial
11 cases
-
Krawiec v. Manly
...(alteration in original) (quoting Dixon v. Stuart , 85 N.C. App. 338, 340, 354 S.E.2d 757, 758 (1987) ), disc. rev. denied , 355 N.C. 748, 565 S.E.2d 665 (2002). Rule 12(b)(6) "generally precludes dismissal except in those instances where the face of the complaint discloses some insurmounta......
-
Turner v. Hammocks Beach Corp.
...864, 561 S.E.2d 351, 353 (quoting Dixon v. Stuart, 85 N.C.App. 338, 340, 354 S.E.2d 757, 758 (1987)), disc. review denied, 355 N.C. 748, 565 S.E.2d 665 (2002). We review the trial court's ruling on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss de novo. Leary v. N.C. Forest Prods., Inc., 157 N.C.App. 39......
-
Crouse v. Mineo
...864, 561 S.E.2d 351, 353 (quoting Dixon v. Stuart, 85 N.C.App. 338, 340, 354 S.E.2d 757, 758 (1987)), disc. review denied, 355 N.C. 748, 565 S.E.2d 665 (2002). "Rule 12(b)(6) `generally precludes dismissal except in those instances where the face of the complaint discloses some insurmountab......
-
Gunn v. Simpson, Schulman & Beard, LLC
...864, 561 S.E.2d 351, 353 (quoting Dixon v. Stuart, 85 N.C.App. 338, 340, 354 S.E.2d 757, 758 (1987)), disc. review denied, 355 N.C. 748, 565 S.E.2d 665 (2002). {22} The Court need not determine that the plaintiff will ultimately prevail in order to deny the motion to dismiss; it need only d......
Get Started for Free