Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Miller v. B.H.B. Enterprises, Inc.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided September 3, 2002No. COA01-1282Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partTyson, Judge

I concur with parts I, IIB, IIC, III, and IV of the majority’s opinion. I respectfully dissent from part IIA for two reasons: (1) plaintiff presented no evidence that “the officers, directors, or managers” of B.H.B. Enterprises, Inc. participated in or condoned the battery committed against plaintiff or that (2) Radford Bennett, the manager of the restaurant, was an “officer, director, or manager” of B.H.B., Enterprises, Inc.

I. G.S. § ID-15

The majority’s opinion sets forth G.S. § 1D-I5(a) and (b) in their entirety. However, that opinion fails to set out subsection (c) which provides as…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Chisom v. RoemerSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
  2. Norfolk & Western Railway Co. v. American Train Dispatchers' Ass'nSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
  3. Meyer v. WallsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1997
  4. Black v. LittlejohnSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1985
  5. State v. SpencerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1970

10 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