Legal Opinion
Crossman v. Moore
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Decided July 28, 1995No. 327PA94PublishedCited by 39 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
WEBB, JUSTICE.
We note first that the refusal of the court to order the relation back of the amendment making Van Dolan Moore, II a party in effect determines the case because defendant Van Dolan Moore, II may plead the statute of limitations. The order is appealable. N.C.G.S. § 1-277 (1983); Oestreicher v. Stores, 290 N.C. 118, 225 S.E.2d 797 (1976).
This case brings to the Court a question as to the interpretation of N.C.G.S. § 1A-1, Rule 15(c), which provides:(c) Relation back of amendments. — A claim asserted in an amended pleading is deemed to have been interposed at the time the claim in…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Schiavone v. FortuneSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Oestreicher v. American National Stores, Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1976
- Brock v. BuaAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1981
- Teague v. Asheboro Motor CompanyCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1972
- Ring Drug Co. v. Carolina Medicorp Enterprises, Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1989
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by39 opinions
- State v. Ridgeway Brands Manufacturing, LLCSupreme Court of North Carolina · 2008
- Estate of Fennell Ex Rel. Fennell v. StephensonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 2001
- Charlot v. Ecolab, Inc.District Court, E.D. New York · 2015
- State Ex Rel. Cooper v. Ridgeway Brands Manufacturing, LLCCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2007
- State Ex Rel. Cooper v. Ridgeway BrandsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 2008
34 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.