Link to original WordPerfect file

How to access the above link?

Docketing Information on this case


2W

N.C. Bd. of Exam. for Speech Path. v. N.C. State Bd. of Educ.

No. 177A96

(Filed 10 February 1997)

No Headnotes.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA

No. 177A96

Filed: 10 February 1997

NORTH CAROLINA BOARD OF EXAMINERS FOR SPEECH AND LANGUAGE PATHOLOGISTS AND AUDIOLOGISTS

    v.

NORTH CAROLINA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION, BOBBY R. ETHERIDGE, Superintendent of Public Instruction, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, GUILFORD COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, DAVIE COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, IREDELL COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, MECKLENBURG COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, COLUMBUS COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, BURKE COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, LAURA SZENASY, JANE IRENE FERREE, ELIZABETH TUTTLE CARTER, PATRICIA YODER, KATHY WIANT, AND BERNADINE ARMSTRONG

    Appeal by defendants pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-30(2) from the decision of a divided panel of the Court of Appeals, 122 N.C. App. 15, 468 S.E.2d 826 (1996), reversing an order of summary judgment for defendants entered by Cashwell, J., on 30 August 1994 in Superior Court, Wake County. On 12 June 1996 this Court allowed defendants' petition for discretionary review of additional issues. Heard in the Supreme Court 11 December 1996.

    Randall, Jervis, & Hill, by John C. Randall, for plaintiff-appellee.

    Michael F. Easley, Attorney General, by Thomas J. Ziko, Special Deputy Attorney General, and Barbara A. Shaw, Assistant Attorney General, for defendant-appellants.

    Kilpatrick & Cody, by Neil I. Levy, for the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, amicus curiae.

    PER CURIAM.

    Chief Justice Mitchell and Justices Frye, Whichard, and Lake voted to affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals for the reasons stated in the majority opinion by Smith, J. Justices Webb, Parker, and Orr voted to reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals for the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion by Greene, J. Accordingly, the decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.

    We hold that defendants' petition for discretionary review of additional issues was improvidently allowed.

    AFFIRMED IN PART; DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IMPROVIDENTLY ALLOWED IN PART.

**** End of Document ****

Converted from WordPerfect