From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hughes v. Rivera-Ortiz

Supreme Court of North Carolina
Oct 10, 2008
362 N.C. 501 (N.C. 2008)

Opinion

No. 611A07.

Filed October 10, 2008.

Appeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-30(2) from the decision of a divided panel of the Court of Appeals, 187 N.C. App. 214, 653 S.E.2d 165 (2007), affirming an order entered 30 November 2005 denying plaintiff's motion for a new trial following a judgment entered 31 October 2005, both by Judge Richard D. Boner in Superior Court, Mecklenburg County. On 6 March 2008, the Supreme Court allowed plaintiff's petition for discretionary review of the unanimous portion of the same Court of Appeals opinion that reversed and remanded the trial court's denial of defendant Callaway's motion for directed verdict in its favor. Heard in the Supreme Court 11 September 2008.

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.


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.


Summaries of

Hughes v. Rivera-Ortiz

Supreme Court of North Carolina
Oct 10, 2008
362 N.C. 501 (N.C. 2008)
Case details for

Hughes v. Rivera-Ortiz

Case Details

Full title:BLONDALE HUGHES v. EPIFANIO RIVERA-ORTIZ, M.D., AND CALLAWAY ASSOCIATES…

Court:Supreme Court of North Carolina

Date published: Oct 10, 2008

Citations

362 N.C. 501 (N.C. 2008)

Citing Cases

Watts v. Bell

While Hogan held that a manager's actions in retaining a wrongdoer, declining to intervene to prevent future…

Vigus v. Latta

"The trial court's discretionary ruling under Rule 59 in either granting or denying a motion for a new trial…