Legal Opinion

Mills v. Koscot Interplanetary, Inc.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided March 29, 1972No. 7222SC9PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

CAMPBELL, Judge.

Defendant's Appeal

Defendant asserts that its motion for judgment on the pleadings should have been sustained. We do not agree. This motion was made under Rule 12 of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure, G.S. 1A-1, Rule 12. The defendant’s motion was made prior to the amendment to the complaint. It is to be passed upon, however, in the light of the evidence presented at the trial and the amendment to the complaint which was thereafter allowed by the trial court. 2A Moore’s Federal Practice, § 12.15, p. 2349 (2d Ed. 1968). When so considered under the new notice theory of…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Sutton v. DukeSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1970
  2. Cofield v. GriffinSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1953
  3. Bryant v. KellySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1971
  4. Swinton v. Savoy Realty Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1953
  5. Bryant v. KellyCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1971

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

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Higgins v. BUILDERS AND FINANCE INCORPORATEDCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1973
  2. Neff v. Queen City Coach Co.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1972
  3. Clouse v. Chairtown Motors, Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1973
  4. Ayers v. TOMRICH CORPORATIONCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1973
  5. Town of Rolesville v. PerryCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1974

1 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