Ponder v. Been
Decision Date | 11 March 2022 |
Docket Number | 70A21 |
Citation | 380 N.C. 570,869 S.E.2d 193 |
Parties | Mark W. PONDER v. Stephen R. BEEN |
Court | North 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.
For the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion, the decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed.
REVERSED.
To continue reading
Request your trial2 cases
-
Toshiba Global Commerce Solutions, Inc. v. Smart & Final Stores LLC
...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
...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......