Hughes v. Rivera-ortiz, 666 S.E.2d 751 (N.C. 2008). · Go Syfert
Search
Hughes v. Rivera-ortiz, 666 S.E.2d 751 (N.C. 2008). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
19 citation events (19 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: In Re Dwc, Jac (ncctapp, 2010-07-06)
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" In Re Dwc, Jac
N.C. Ct. App. · 2010 · signal: see · confidence high
P. 3(d) (2010) ("The notice of appeal ... shall designate the judgment or order from which appeal is taken and the court to which appeal is taken[.]"); see In re L.B., 187 N.C.App. 326, 332 , 653 S.E.2d 240, 244 (2007) (Rule 3.1 is "jurisdictional, and if not complied with, the appeal must be dismissed."), aff'd, 362 N.C. 507 , 666 S.E.2d 751 (2008).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." People Ex Rel. South Dakota Department of Social Services Ex Rel. B.H.
S.D. · 2011 · signal: compare · confidence low
Compare In re L.B., 187 N.C.App. 326 , 653 S.E.2d 240, 244 (2007), aff'd per curiam, 362 N.C. 507 , 666 S.E.2d 751 (2008), and In re M.P.A., 689 S.E.2d 245 , 2009 WL 4917317 (N.C.Ct.App.2009), with In re S.B., 666 N.W.2d 621 , 2003 WL 1970757 , at *2 (Iowa Ct.App.2003), and In re T.F. and H.F., 666 N.W.2d 622 , 2003 WL 21076398 (Iowa Ct.App.2003). [¶ 18.] The most recent change to the language of SDCL 15-26A-4 includes two sentences.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
BLONDALE HUGHES
v.
EPIFANIO RIVERA-ORTIZ, M.D., and CALLAWAY ASSOCIATES, LLP D/B/A PROMED OF NORTH CAROLINA, PLLC
611A07.
Supreme Court of North Carolina.
Oct 10, 2008.
666 S.E.2d 751
Ferguson, Stein, Gresham & Sumter, P.A., by S. Luke Largess, for plaintiff-appellant. , Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein LLP, by Harvey L. Cosper, Jr., Lori R. Keeton, and Leigh K. Hickman, for defendant-appellee Epifanio Rivera-Ortiz, M.D. , Shumaker, Loop & Kendrick, LLP, by Scott M. Stevenson and Tasha L. Winebarger, for defendant-appellee Callaway Associates, LLP, d/b/a ProMed of North Carolina, PLLC.
Per Curiam.
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Published
PER CURIAM.

As to the issue on direct appeal based on the dissenting opinion, the decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed. The petition for discretionary review as to an additional issue was improvidently allowed.

AFFIRMED IN PART; DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IMPROVIDENTLY ALLOWED.