No. 18-7142

Evelyn Talley v. Pride Mobility Products Corporation, et al.

Lower Court: North Carolina
Docketed: 2018-12-26
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: 14th-amendment civil-procedure due-process full-and-fair-trial negligence privileges-and-immunities product-liability trial-on-merits
Key Terms:
DueProcess
Latest Conference: 2019-02-15
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Are state courts required to allow a plaintiff in product liability case alleging negligence a full and fair trial on the merits under the privileges and immunities and due process clauses of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution?

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTION PRESENTED Are state courts required to allow a plaintiff in product liability case alleging negligence a full and fair trial on the merits under the privileges and immunities and due process clauses of the 14" Amendment to the United States Constitution? / In the Supreme Court of the United States PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI Petitioner Evelyn Talley respectfully prays that a writ of certiorari issue to review the judgment below. OPINION BELOW The opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals appears at

Docket Entries

2019-02-19
Petition DENIED.
2019-01-31
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/15/2019.
2019-01-22
Waiver of right of respondent Defendant Pride Mobility Products Corporation to respond filed.
2019-01-18
Waiver of right of respondents Quality Home Healthcare, Inc., William S. Cameron and Barbara B. Cameron to respond filed.
2018-12-19
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due January 25, 2019)

Attorneys

Defendant Pride Mobility Products Corporation
Todd A. KingCranfill Summer & Hartzg, LLP, Respondent
Todd A. KingCranfill Summer & Hartzg, LLP, Respondent
Evelyn Talley
Evelyn Talley — Petitioner
Evelyn Talley — Petitioner
Quality Home Healthcare, Inc., William S. Cameron and Barbara B. Cameron
Rodney E. PetteyYates, McLamb & Weyher, LLP, Respondent
Rodney E. PetteyYates, McLamb & Weyher, LLP, Respondent