Ponder v. Been

Decision Date11 March 2022
Docket Number70A21
Citation380 N.C. 570,869 S.E.2d 193
Parties Mark W. PONDER v. Stephen R. BEEN
CourtNorth Carolina Supreme Court

Sodoma Law, by Amy Simpson, for plaintiff-appellant.

James, McElroy & Diehl, P.A., Charlotte, by Preston O. Odom, III, and Claire Samuels Law, PLLC, by Claire J. Samuels, Charlotte, for defendant-appellee.

PER CURIAM.

For the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion, the decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed.

REVERSED.

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Toshiba Global Commerce Solutions, Inc. v. Smart & Final Stores LLC
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • June 17, 2022
    ...Been , 275 N.C. App. 626, 636–37, 853 S.E.2d 302 (2020) (Stroud, J., dissenting), rev'd per curiam for reasons stated in the dissent , 380 N.C. 570, 2022-NCSC-24, 869 S.E.2d 193 ; Eluhu v. Rosenhaus , 159 N.C. App. 355, 357, 583 S.E.2d 707 (2003), aff'd per curiam , 358 N.C. 372, 595 S.E.2d......
  • Hundley v. AutoMoney, Inc., COA21-305
    • United States
    • North Carolina Court of Appeals
    • July 19, 2022
    ...the evidence. Ponder v. Been , 275 N.C. App. 626, 637, 853 S.E.2d 302, 309-10 (Stroud, J., dissenting), rev'd per curiam per dissent , 380 N.C. 570, 2022-NCSC-24, 869 S.E.2d 193. "Therefore, the question for the appellate court is whether, as a matter of law, the allegations of the complain......

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