Jones v. Harrelson & Smith Contractors, LLC, 677 S.E.2d 453 (N.C. 2009). · Go Syfert
Search
Jones v. Harrelson & Smith Contractors, LLC, 677 S.E.2d 453 (N.C. 2009). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“vidence insufficient to establish a breach of contract may nonetheless be admissible to prove that a contract was fraudulently induced or that the defendant committed unfair and deceptive trade practices.”
13 citation events (13 in the last 25 years) across 7 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Definitive Staffing Solutions, Inc. v. Staffing Advantage, L.L.C. (nced, 2019-08-06)
Top citers, strongest first. 1 distinct citer. How cited ↗
examined Cited as authority (quoted) Definitive Staffing Solutions, Inc. v. Staffing Advantage, L.L.C.
E.D.N.C. · 2019 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
vidence insufficient to establish a breach of contract may nonetheless be admissible to prove that a contract was fraudulently induced or that the defendant committed unfair and deceptive trade practices.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Darvella JONES
v.
HARRELSON AND SMITH CONTRACTORS, LLC, a North Carolina Corporation, and Rodney S. Turner d/b/a Rodney S. Turner Housemovers.
36A07-2.
Supreme Court of North Carolina.
Jun 18, 2009.
677 S.E.2d 453
Per Curiam.
Published
1 passage pin-cited by 1 case
Pinpoint authority: bottom 68%
Citer courts: E.D. North Carolina (1)

[*454] Ellis & Winters, by J. Donald Cowan, Jr., Raleigh; and Smith Moore Leatherwood, LLP, by Sidney S. Eagles, Jr., Raleigh, for plaintiff-appellee.

Hopf & Higley, P.A., by Donald S. Higley, II, Greenville, for defendant-appellant Harrelson and Smith Contractors, LLC.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.