Itco Corporation, Appellant, v. Michelin Tire Corporation, Commercial Division, Appellee.andstate of North Carolina, Amicus Curiae.itco Corporation, Appellee, v. Michelin Tire Corporation, Commercial Division, Appellant, 742 F.2d 170 (4th Cir. 1984)
Annotate this CaseAppeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Franklin T. Dupree, Jr., District Judge.
Charles Gordon Brown, Chapel Hills, N.C. (Jordan, Brown, Price & Wall, Chapel Hill, N.C., John R. Jordan, Jr., Jordan, Brown, Price & Wall, Samuel W. Johnson, Meadows, Johnson & Spinks, Rocky Mount, N.C., John F. Dienelt, Brownstein, Zeidman & Schomer, Washington, D.C., on brief), for appellants.
J. Brantley Phillips, Jr., Natalma M. McKnew, Greenville, S.C. (Fletcher C. Mann, Leatherwood, Walker, Tood & Mann, Greenville, S.C., Jerry S. Alvis, Young, Moore, Henderson & Alvis, Raleigh, N.C., on brief), for appellee.
Rufus L. Edmisten, Atty. Gen. of N.C., H.A. Cole, Jr., Sp. Deputy Atty. Gen., John R. Corne, Associate Atty. Gen., Raleigh, N.C., on brief, as amicus curiae.
Before RUSSELL, MURNAGHAN and ERVIN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
The judgment of the district court is reversed, and this case is remanded for reasons stated in the opinion of the original panel. ITCO Corp. v. Michelin Tire Corp., Commercial Division, 722 F.2d 42 (4th Cir. 1983). Judge Russell dissents for the reasons stated in his dissent to the panel opinion. 722 F.2d at 53-55.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
