Legal Opinion

Mauney v. Morris

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided February 18, 1986No. 231PA85PublishedCited by 60 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

FRYE, Justice.

The primary question before this Court is whether the trial judge erred in denying plaintiffs motion to amend his complaint to add a cause of action to enforce a materialman’s or laborer’s lien where the motion was filed within the statutory period al lowed for bringing an action to enforce such a lien. For the reasons outlined below, we find that plaintiffs motion should have been granted.

Plaintiff began an action against the individual defendants James and Dorothy Morris and corporate defendant Morris Rentals on 18 July 1983 by filing a summons and a notice of lis pendens to…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Henry v. DeenSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1984
  2. Roberts v. William N. & Kate B. Reynolds Mem. ParkSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1972
  3. Vernon v. CristSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1977
  4. Mangum v. SurlesSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1972
  5. Burcl v. North Carolina Baptist Hospital, Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1982

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

3Cited by60 opinions

  1. Stetser v. Tap Pharmaceutical Products, Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 2004
  2. Azure Dolphin, LLC v. BartonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 2018
  3. Pyco Supply Co. v. American Centennial InsuranceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1988
  4. Nett v. BellucciMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2002
  5. Vaughan v. MashburnSupreme Court of North Carolina · 2018

55 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