Legal Opinion
Hoyle v. Bagby
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Decided January 20, 1961No. 672PublishedCited by 31 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtHiggiNS, J.
Counsel for plaintiff, during the argument here, moved for leave to amend the complaint in order to amplify his allegations of fraud. However, neither the motion, nor the proposed amendment, was reduced to writing and filed in this Court as required by Rule 36, Rules of Practice in the Supreme Court, 221 N.C. 566. The motion and amendment are not in compliance with the rules and the Court cannot consider them.
The plaintiff alleged the defendant purposely misinformed him concerning the time he had been paid by Duke University and about the payments he had already received, “for the purpose of…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Gleason v. ThawSupreme Court of the United States · 1915
- Williams v. . WilliamsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1942
- Friend v. TalcottSupreme Court of the United States · 1931
- Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Md. v. ArenzSupreme Court of the United States · 1933
- Patuxent Development Co. v. BeardenSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1947
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by31 opinions
- Broussard v. Meineke Discount Muffler Shops, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1998
- Matthew Strum v. Exxon Company, Usa, a Division of Exxon Corporation Exxon CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1994
- Overstreet v. Brookland, Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1981
- McKinnon v. CV INDUSTRIES, INC.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 2011
- United States Ex Rel. O'Donnell v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2016
26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.