Legal Opinion

Wilburn v. Wilburn

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided September 18, 1963No. 103PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

PeR Cueiam.

Defendant assigns as error the court’s refusal to grant her request for a continuance made on 5 March. Continuances are not favored. The granting or denial of a motion to continue is a matter in the sound discretion of the trial judge and will not be disturbed unless an abuse of discretion is made to appear. Cleeland v. Cleeland, 249 N.C. 16, 105 S.E. 2d 114; Watters v. Parrish, 252 N.C. 787, 115 S.E. 2d 1.

The facts appearing in the record, summarized in the foregoing statement, do not show an abuse of discretion. To the contrary, they indicate the court’s desire to afford…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Watters Ex Rel. Watters v. ParrishSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1960
  2. A. M. Sloan & Co. v. McDowellSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1876
  3. Cleeland v. CleelandSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1958
  4. Hubbs v. NicholsTennessee Supreme Court · 1956
  5. Martin v. MartinSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1961

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

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Patrick v. HurdleCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1972
  2. Bost v. Citizens National BankCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1968
  3. Gasque v. GasqueSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1965
  4. Wilburn v. WilburnDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1965
  5. In Re the Custody of SkipperSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1964

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

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

Powered by the Exa API