Legal Opinion

Wilson v. Hoyle

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided December 16, 1964No. 665PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBobbitt, J.

It was appropriate for Judge Gambill, in the exercise of his discretion, to determine the plea of res judicata, a plea in bar, prior to trial on the merits of plaintiffs’ alleged cause of action. Jones v. Mathis, 254 N.C. 421, 425, 119 S.E. 2d 200, and cases cited.

In our view, the record does not support plaintiffs’ contention that Judge Gambill entered judgment on the pleadings. The stipulations referred to in the judgment established the identity of parties and of subject matter in the two actions. The judgment refers to and quotes from Judge Crissman’s judgment in the prior action. It…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Bruton v. . Light Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1940
  2. Bruton v. Carolina Power & Light Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1940
  3. Hayes v. RicardSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1960
  4. King v. NeeseSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1951
  5. Jones v. MathisSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1961

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

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Painter v. Wake County Board of EducationSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1975
  2. Smoky Mountain Enterprises, Inc. v. Jesse RoseSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1973
  3. Garner v. GarnerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1966
  4. Stewart v. HuntDistrict Court, E.D. North Carolina · 1984
  5. Mason v. North Carolina State Highway CommissionCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1970

5 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