From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Samost v. Duke Univ.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.
Dec 20, 2013
367 N.C. 185 (N.C. 2013)

Opinion

No. 218A13.

2013-12-20

Albert H. SAMOST and Timothy E. Shaughnessy v. DUKE UNIVERSITY.

Ekstrand & Ekstrand LLP, Durham, by Robert Ekstrand, for plaintiff-appellants. Ellis & Winters LLP, Raleigh, by Paul K. Sun, Jr., Nora F. Warren, and Kelly Margolis Dagger, for defendant-appellee.


Appeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A–30(2) from the decision of a divided panel of the Court of Appeals, ––– N.C.App. ––––, 742 S.E.2d 257 (2013), affirming an order granting judgment on the pleadings for defendant entered on 12 January 2012 by Judge Orlando F. Hudson, Jr. in Superior Court, Durham County. Heard in the Supreme Court on 19 November 2013. Ekstrand & Ekstrand LLP, Durham, by Robert Ekstrand, for plaintiff-appellants. Ellis & Winters LLP, Raleigh, by Paul K. Sun, Jr., Nora F. Warren, and Kelly Margolis Dagger, for defendant-appellee.
PER CURIAM.

Justice JACKSON took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. The remaining members of the Court are equally divided, with three members voting to affirm and three members voting to reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals. Accordingly, the decision of the Court of Appeals is left undisturbed and stands without precedential value. See, e.g., Amward Homes, Inc. v. Town of Cary, 365 N.C. 305, 716 S.E.2d 849 (2011); State v. Pastuer, 365 N.C. 287, 715 S.E.2d 850 (2011).

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

Samost v. Duke Univ.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.
Dec 20, 2013
367 N.C. 185 (N.C. 2013)
Case details for

Samost v. Duke Univ.

Case Details

Full title:Albert H. SAMOST and Timothy E. Shaughnessy v. DUKE UNIVERSITY.

Court:Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Date published: Dec 20, 2013

Citations

367 N.C. 185 (N.C. 2013)
751 S.E.2d 611

Citing Cases

Stern v. Stern

"A trial court's ruling on a motion for judgment on the pleadings is subject to de novo review on appeal."…

Barefoot v. Rule

We will now utilize this standard of review to determine whether the trial court correctly granted…