Petitions for Discretionary Review

Full title: PETITIONS FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina

Date published: Apr 10, 1997

345 N.C. 753 (N.C. 1997)

345 N.C. 753

Opinion

485 S.E.2d 54 (N.C. 1997) 345 N.C. 753 Richard D. KAPLAN, M.D., Marguerite Kaplan, Jacob M. Kaplan, and David S. Kaplan v. PROLIFE ACTION LEAGUE OF GREENSBORO, William H. Winfield, Jr., Linda Winfield, Ronald W. Benfield, Scott Allred, Stephen Michael Beall, Seth Hinshaw, Albert Hodges, Jeffrey Alexander Kendall, Father Conrad Kimbrough, Julian McClamroch, Bernard McHale, Duane Richardson, Candido Rosario, a/k/a Candido Rosario Matos, Dr. Keith Schimmel, Ronald Steinkamp, John Thompson, Kevin Wolpert, Leigh Allred, Karen L. Beane, Virginia Bell, Sharon Steele Clark, Mariana Donadio, Libby Dunsmore, Rhonda Edmonds, a/k/a Rhoda Edmonds, Theresa Farley, Pamela Ford Allison, Yvonne Ford, Hariette Gabriele, Georgia Gaines, Elsie Galan, Karin Grubbe, Deborah Hebestreit, Dianne McClamroch, Elaine McHale, Rebecca Morrison, Monica Pollard, Carol Redmond, Marta Richardson, Elizabeth D. Salter, a/k/a Betty Salter, Kimberly Schimmel, Annabelle Simpson, Betty Steinkamp, Lynn Thompson, Laurel Treddinick, Amber Winfield, Catherine Wolpert, John Does XX through XXVIII, and Jane Does XXXV through XLII. No. 450A96. Supreme Court of North Carolina. April 10, 1997

       Alan W. Duncan, Greensboro, Matthew W. Sawchak, Raleigh, for Kaplan et al.

       Clayton M. Custer, Winston-Salem, for Allison, Donadio, Edmonds et al.

       J. Reed Johnston, Jr., Greensboro, for Virginia D. Bell.

       Nathan W. Kellum, Greensboro, for Allred, Beall, Beane, Galan et al.

       Harold C. Mahler, Greensboro, for Dunsmore, McHales&sSimpson.

       Walter Weber, for Prolife Action League.

       C. Michael Day, Winston-Salem, for Diane and Julia McClamroch.

       Brian Fahling, Tupelo, MS, James W. Lung, Greensboro, for Allreds, Beall, Beane et al.

       Prior report: 123 N.C.App. 720, 475 S.E.2d 247.

       ORDER

       Upon consideration of the petition for discretionary review, filed by Plaintiffs in this matter pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 and the Appellate Rule 16(b) as to issues in addition to those presented as the basis for the dissenting opinion in the Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: the petition for discretionary review as to additional issues is

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 10th day of April 1997."

       Motion by defendants (Prolife Action, et al.) to dismiss appeal in part allowed 10 April 1997.