Narrative Opinion Summary
In the case of Heating and Air Conditioning Associates, Inc. v. Charles S. Myerly et al., the Supreme Court of North Carolina addressed a petition by the plaintiffs for discretionary review following an appellate decision (N.C.App. 223 S.E.2d 545). The court, however, denied the petition and dismissed the appeal ex mero motu, indicating that there was no substantial constitutional question raised in the appeal. The case involved parties from both a partnership (Ernst) and a corporation (Bryant Heating and Equipment Company) against the defendants, Charles S. Myerly et al. The ruling was issued on June 1, 1976, with attorneys Waggoner, Hasty, and Kratt representing the plaintiffs, and Kennedy, Covington, Lobdell, and Hickman representing the defendants.
Legal Issues Addressed
Discretionary Review by Supreme Courtsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The Supreme Court of North Carolina exercised its discretion to deny the petition for review on the grounds that no substantial constitutional question was presented.
Reasoning: The court, however, denied the petition and dismissed the appeal ex mero motu, indicating that there was no substantial constitutional question raised in the appeal.
Dismissal of Appeal Ex Mero Motusubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court dismissed the appeal on its own motion, suggesting a lack of merit in the issues presented for review.
Reasoning: The court, however, denied the petition and dismissed the appeal ex mero motu, indicating that there was no substantial constitutional question raised in the appeal.