Legal Opinion

Hoglen v. James

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided November 21, 1978No. 7830SC93PublishedCited by 15 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

HEDRICK, Judge.

Unless the court in its Order of dismissal for failure to prosecute the action otherwise specifies, the dismissal under Rule 41 operates as an adjudication on the merits. G.S. § 1A-1, Rule 41(b). Plaintiff’s motion, filed 9 May 1975, to “set aside the order of dismissal in this cause” does not specify the number of the rule under which plaintiff was proceeding as required by Rule 6 of the General Rules of Practice for Superior and District Courts supplemental to the Rules of Civil Procedure; however, since defendant failed to challenge this omission at the hearing on the…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. U.S.I.F. Wynnewood Corp. v. SoderquistCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1975
  2. Hudgins v. . WhiteSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1871
  3. Burwell v. WilkersonCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1976
  4. Charleston Capital Corp. v. Love Valley Enterprises, Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1971

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. Briley v. FarabowSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1998
  2. Hieb v. LoweryCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1995
  3. Milton M. Croom Charitable Remainder Unitrust v. HedrickCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2008
  4. York v. TaylorCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1986
  5. Trent v. River Place, LLCCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2006

10 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