Legal Opinion

Brantley v. Dunstan

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided March 31, 1971No. 7110SC133PublishedCited by 25 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

CAMPBELL, Judge.

The sole question presented upon this appeal is whether the record discloses that the plaintiff’s claim is barred by the running of the statute of limitations. If so, defendants were en titled to judgment as a matter of law and summary judgment, under Rule 56, N. C. Rules of Civil Procedure, was appropriate. Whether regarded as arising out of contract or tort, the prescribed period for the commencement of the action is three years. G.S. 1-52(1) and (5).

The record discloses that the injury complained of occurred when the defective summons was filed 26 November 1965. The present…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Jewell v. PriceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1965
  2. Land v. Neill Pontiac, IncorporatedCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1969
  3. Brantley v. SawyerCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1969

3Cited by25 opinions

  1. Pembee Mfg. Corp. v. Cape Fear Construction Co.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1984
  2. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of North Carolina v. Odell Associates, Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1983
  3. Ferris v. HaymoreCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1992
  4. Hiatt v. Burlington Industries, Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1982
  5. Jarrell v. Samsonite CorporationCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1971

20 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