NORTH CAROLINA BOARD OF PHARMACY v. RULES REVIEW COMMISSION (2006)

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

NORTH CAROLINA BOARD OF PHARMACY v. The RULES REVIEW COMMISSION et al.

No. 673A05.

Decided: November 17, 2006

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.

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.

REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED; DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IMPROVIDENTLY ALLOWED.

PER CURIAM.

Justice TIMMONS-GOODSON did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.

Was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes

A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.

Go to Learn About the Law