NORTH CAROLINA BOARD OF PHARMACY
v.
The RULES REVIEW COMMISSION et al.
Supreme Court of North Carolina.https://leagle.com/images/logo.png
November 17, 2006.
November 17, 2006.
Attorney(s) appearing for the Case
Ellis & Winters, LLP, by Matthew W. Sawchak, Julia F. Youngman, and Stephen D. Feldman, Raleigh, for plaintiff-appellant.
McMillan, Smith & Plyler, by William W. Plyler and Stephen T. Smith, Raleigh, for defendant-appellees.
Roy Cooper, Attorney General, by Christopher G. Browning, Jr., Solicitor General, and Gary R. Govert, Special Deputy Attorney General, for defendant-intervenor-appellee.
Smith Moore, LLP, by Robert R. Marcus and Angela L. Little, Greensboro, for the National Association of Boards of Pharmacy, amicus curiae.
Southern Environmental Law Center, by Amy E. Pickle, for the North Carolina Coastal Federation, North Carolina Shellfish Growers Association, Environmental Defense, and North Carolina Trout Unlimited, amici curiae.
Everett, Gaskins, Hancock & Stevens, LLP, by C. Amanda Martin, for the American Pharmacists Association and North Carolina Association of Pharmacists, amici curiae.
Kennedy Covington Lobdell & Hickman, LLP, by Stanford D. Baird, Ann M. Anderson, and Daniel J. Palmieri, for North Carolina Citizens for Business and Industry, North Carolina Home Builders Association, North Carolina Pork Council, Inc., North Carolina Retail Merchants Association, North Carolina Association of Realtors, Inc., North Carolina Forestry Association, North Carolina Aggregates Association, Carolinas Associated General Contractors, National Federation of Independent Businesses Legal Foundation, North Carolina Farm Bureau, and Manufacturers & Chemical Industry Council of North Carolina, amici curiae.
Broughton Wilkins Smith Sugg & Thompson, PLLC, by Benjamin E. Thompson, III, for the North Carolina Retail Merchants Association, amicus curiae.
Supreme Court of North Carolina.
PER CURIAM.
As to the appeal of right based on the dissenting opinion, we reverse the Court of Appeals for the reasons stated in the dissent. We further conclude that the petition for discretionary review as to additional issues was improvidently allowed.
This case is remanded to the Court of Appeals for further remand to the Wake County Superior Court for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion....
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting Sign on now to see your case. Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
Updated daily.
Uncompromising quality.
Complete, Accurate, Current.
Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full
text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.
Cited Cases
No Cases Found
Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the
full text of the citing case.
