Merrick v. Peterson
| Decision Date | 08 November 2001 |
| Docket Number | No. 392P01.,392P01. |
| Citation | 556 S.E.2d 572,354 N.C. 364 |
| Parties | Rose Mary MERRICK, a minor v. Glenn R. PETERSON, Bernice Croom, Elsie Jane Peterson, Linwood Peterson, Ismae P. Brinson, Lois P. Sanders, Mary Burns Lennon, et als. v. Carneal Hooper, Floyd Henry Hooper, William Fitzgerald Hooper, Lilly Gail Hooper Newkirk, and James Almo Williams, Guardian Ad Litem for the unnamed, unknown, Incompetent and minor heirs of John H. Hooper and Joshua Hooper, Sr. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Mary Margaret Nunalee, Jacqueline Morris-Goodson, Wilmington, for Sherman L. Davis, Guardian Ad Litem for Rose Mary Merrick.
Henry G. Foy, Shallotte, for "Peterson" Defendants.
Prior report: 143 N.C.App. 656, 548 S.E.2d 171.
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 8th day of November 2001."
To continue reading
Request your trial
12 cases
-
Leatherwood v. Ehlinger
...resolved in favor of the non-movant. See Merrick v. Peterson, 143 N.C.App. 656, 661, 548 S.E.2d 171, 175, disc. rev. denied, 354 N.C. 364, 556 S.E.2d 572 (2001). In negligence cases, a directed verdict is seldom appropriate in view of the fact that the issue of whether a defendant breached ......
-
Hinman v. Cornett
...of the land claimed for the prescriptive period [.]" Merrick v. Peterson, 143 N.C.App. 656, 663, 548 S.E.2d 171, 176, disc. review denied, 354 N.C. 364, 556 S.E.2d 572 (2001). The law does not favor adverse possession and the presumption before the court is that a claimant's use is permissi......
-
Lancaster v. MAPLE STREET HOMEOWNERS ASS'N, INC.
...known and visible lines and boundaries." Merrick v. Peterson, 143 N.C.App. 656, 663, 548 S.E.2d 171, 176, disc. rev. denied, 354 N.C. 364, 556 S.E.2d 572 (2001) (citing Curd v. Winecoff, 88 N.C.App. 720, 364 S.E.2d 730 A. Actual, Open, and Continuous Since the 1950's, the families on Maple ......
-
Rushing v. Aldridge
...known and visible lines and boundaries.” Merrick v. Peterson, 143 N.C.App. 656, 663, 548 S.E.2d 171, 176, disc. review denied, 354 N.C. 364, 556 S.E.2d 572 (2001). Only two of those elements are at issue in this case: exclusivity and hostility.A. Exclusivity “Exclusivity” requires that “ ‘o......
Request a trial to view additional results