PINTACUDA v. ZUCKEBERG
| Decision Date | 02 April 2004 |
| Docket Number | No. 509A03.,509A03. |
| Citation | PINTACUDA v. ZUCKEBERG, 593 S.E.2d 776, 358 N.C. 211 (N.C. 2004) |
| 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.
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your 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 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 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 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 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 Free 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......