Legal Opinion

Echols v. Zarn, Inc.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided November 3, 1995No. 538A94PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Per curiam

With respect to plaintiffs first assignment of error as to whether she may maintain this action for damages against her co-employee, Edith Barnett, pursuant to the holding in Pleasant v. Johnson, 312 N.C. 710, 325 S.E.2d 244 (1985), we affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals.

With respect to plaintiffs second assignment of error as to whether she may maintain this action against her employer, Zarn, Inc., pursuant to the holding in Woodson v. Rowland, 329 N.C. 330, 407 S.E.2d 222 (1991), we also affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals. However, as we did in Mickles v. Duke Power…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Woodson v. RowlandSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1991
  2. Pleasant v. JohnsonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1985
  3. Mickles v. Duke Power Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1995
  4. Echols v. Zarn, Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1994

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Mickles v. Duke Power Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1995
  2. Trivette v. YountSupreme Court of North Carolina · 2012
  3. Zimmerman Ex Rel. Zimmerman v. Valdak Corp.North Dakota Supreme Court · 1997
  4. Maraman v. Cooper Steel FabricatorsCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2001
  5. Dorton v. HENDRICK MOTORSPORTS, INC.District Court, M.D. North Carolina · 2011

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API