Legal Opinion

Jarman v. Washington

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided February 21, 1989No. 884SC610PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

PARKER, Judge.

The sole issue presented by this appeal is whether the trial court erred in dismissing plaintiffs action under Rule 41. For the reasons stated below, we hold that the action was not properly dismissed, and we reverse the trial court’s order of 15 February 1988.

Plaintiff’s first action was dismissed by court order for failure to comply with the Rules of Civil Procedure. Dismissal on these grounds is authorized by Rule 41(b) of the N.C. Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 41(b) provides in pertinent part:

Unless the court in its order for dismissal otherwise specifies, a dismissal under…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Poloron Products, Inc. (With Substitution Applied for by Dynamark Corporation, Assignee) v. Lybrand Ross Bros. & Montgomery, and Third-Party v. Poloron Products of Indiana, Inc., Third-PartyCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1976
  2. Parrish v. UzzellCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1979
  3. Evans v. ChippsCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1982
  4. Hughes Supply, Inc. v. Friendly City Electric Fixture Co., Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1964
  5. Norris v. JohnsonMissouri Court of Appeals · 1980

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Clark v. Velsicol Chemical Corp.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1993

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API