From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Petitions for Discretionary Review

Supreme Court of North Carolina
Dec 17, 1992
333 N.C. 168 (N.C. 1992)

Summary

finding that a plaintiff who did not allege fraud but alleged an existing fiduciary duty stated a claim for unfair and deceptive trade practices based on the defendant's omissions

Summary of this case from City of High Point v. Suez Treatment Sols.

Opinion


424 S.E.2d 910 (N.C. 1992) 333 N.C. 168 KRON MEDICAL CORPORATION v. COLLIER COBBs&sASSOCIATES, INC. and Jack Smith. No. 360P92. Supreme Court of North Carolina. December 17, 1992

       E.K. Powe, Durham, for defendants.

       Lunsford Long, Chapel Hill, J. Jerome Hartzell, Raleigh, for Kron Medical Corp.

       Ann M. Kappler, DC, for NACSA.

       F. Eugene Hafer, Raleigh, for CAPIA.

       Prior report: 107 N.C.App. 331, 420 S.E.2d 192.

       ORDER

       Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendants 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 17th day of December 1992."

       NACSA's Motion in Support of Petition for Discretionary Review has been filed and the following order entered:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 17th day of December 1992."

       CAPIA's Motion in Support of Petition for Discretionary Review has been filed and the following order entered:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 17th day of December 1992."

       Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time to File Response to Petition for Discretionary Review has been filed and the following order entered: "Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 17th day of December 1992."


Summaries of

Petitions for Discretionary Review

Supreme Court of North Carolina
Dec 17, 1992
333 N.C. 168 (N.C. 1992)

finding that a plaintiff who did not allege fraud but alleged an existing fiduciary duty stated a claim for unfair and deceptive trade practices based on the defendant's omissions

Summary of this case from City of High Point v. Suez Treatment Sols.
Case details for

Petitions for Discretionary Review

Case Details

Full title:PETITIONS FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

Court:Supreme Court of North Carolina

Date published: Dec 17, 1992

Citations

333 N.C. 168 (N.C. 1992)
333 N.C. 168

Citing Cases

Virmani v. Presbyterian Health Services Corp.

In re Belk, 107 N.C. App. 448, 453, 420 S.E.2d 682, 685, appeal dismissed and disc. review denied, 333 N.C.…

Virmani v. Presbyterian Health Services Corp.

Cf. In re Belk, 107 N.C. App. 448, 420 S.E.2d 682 (concluding that neither the United States Constitution nor…