Legal Opinion

Roberts v. Whitley

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided March 14, 1973No. 7311SC101PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

GRAHAM, Judge.

We find the complaint, although sparse in detail, sufficient to meet the requirements of G.S. 1A-1, Rule 8. Fact pleading is no longer required. “A pleading complies with the rule if it gives sufficient notice of the events or transactions which produced the claim to enable the adverse party to understand the nature of it and the basis for it, to file a responsive pleading, and — by using the rules provided for obtaining pretrial discovery — to get any additional information he may need to prepare for trial.” Sutton v. Duke, 277 N.C. 94, 104, 176 S.E. 2d 161, 167. See also…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. United States v. Diebold, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1962
  2. Sutton v. DukeSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1970
  3. Page v. SloanSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1972
  4. Roberts v. William N. & Kate B. Reynolds Mem. ParkSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1972
  5. Eleanora B. Cobb Rogers v. Peabody Coal CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1965

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Ross v. RossCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1977
  2. Giles v. SmithCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1993
  3. Haddock v. SmithsonCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1976

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

Powered by the Exa API