Summary
holding that James and LaVerne Tumlin could not intervene, because their interests were adequately represented by the Association
Summary of this case from Harborgate Prop. Owners Ass'n v. Mountain LakeOpinion
1999
From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research
Disposition of Petitions for Discretionary Review
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jan 1, 1999
351 N.C. 103 (N.C. 1999)
Summaries of
Disposition of Petitions for Discretionary Review
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jan 1, 1999
351 N.C. 103 (N.C. 1999)
holding that James and LaVerne Tumlin could not intervene, because their interests were adequately represented by the Association
Summary of this case from Harborgate Prop. Owners Ass'n v. Mountain LakeCase details for
Disposition of Petitions for Discretionary Review
Case Details
Full title:DISPOSITION OF PETITIONS FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW
Court:Supreme Court of North Carolina
Date published: Jan 1, 1999
Citations
351 N.C. 103 (N.C. 1999)
Citing Cases
Medical Mutual Ins. Co. v. Mauldin
This court has held repeatedly that equitable remedies which require the payment of money do not constitute…
Harborgate Prop. Owners Ass'n v. Mountain LakeIn fact, this particular subdivision has been the subject of much controversy. Particularly, this subdivision…