PINTACUDA v. ZUCKEBERG, 509A03.
| Decision Date | 02 April 2004 |
| Docket Number | No. 509A03.,509A03. |
| Citation | 358 N.C. 211,593 S.E.2d 776 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | Jay T. PINTACUDA and wife Lucretia Pintacuda v. Jack ZUCKEBERG. |
Roberts & Stevens, P.A., by Jacqueline D. Grant and Kenneth R. Hunt, Asheville, for plaintiffs-appellees.
Van Winkle, Buck, Wall, Starnes, & Davis, P.A., by Dale A. Curriden and Vaughn S. Monroe, Asheville, for defendant-appellant.
As to the issue on direct appeal, we reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals for the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion. Further, we conclude that the petition for discretionary review as to the additional issues was improvidently allowed.
REVERSED; DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IMPROVIDENTLY ALLOWED.
To continue reading
Request your trial
3 cases
-
Pope v. Bridge Broom, Inc.
...N.C.App. 617, 624–26, 583 S.E.2d 348, 353–54 (2003) (Timmons–Goodson, J., dissenting), rev'd for reasons stated in dissent, 358 N.C. 211, 593 S.E.2d 776 (2004), in which our Supreme Court upheld entry of a directed verdict in the defendant's favor because the evidence established intervenin......
- Watkins v. NORTH CAROLINA DENTAL BD.
-
Etheridge v. Elizabethan Gardens, Inc., No. 05-1374 (N.C. App. 7/18/2006)
...dissenting) (affirming summary judgment when plaintiff could not say what caused his motorcycle to skid), adopted per curiam, 358 N.C. 211, 593 S.E.2d 776 (2004); Byrd v. Arrowood, 118 N.C. App. 418, 421, 455 S.E.2d 672, 674 (1995) (affirming summary judgment when "plaintiff could not say t......