Legal Opinion

Jennings v. Lindsey

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided August 7, 1984No. 8330SC684PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

EAGLES, Judge.

Defendants contend that this action is barred by the statute of limitations. Plaintiffs urge that under the facts of this case, the statute of limitations does not bar their claims of fraud. We agree with plaintiffs.

I

We note first that defendants’ motion to dismiss was considered by the trial court as having been brought under G.S. 1A-1, Rule 8(c). Rule 8(c) is limited by its own terms to responsive pleadings. Defendants’ motion here was made and granted prior to their filing any responsive pleading.

Dickens v. Puryear, 302 N.C. 437, 276 S.E. 2d 325 (1981), provides that “a party…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Dickens v. PuryearSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1981
  2. Johnson v. Phoenix Mutual Life InsuranceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1980
  3. Smith v. Ford Motor Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1976
  4. Wilson v. Crab Orchard Development CompanySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1970
  5. Vail v. VailSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1951

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

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. White v. Consolidated Planning, Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 2004
  2. Fichera v. Mine Hill Corp.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1988
  3. Newton v. BarthCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2016
  4. Spoor v. BarthCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2016
  5. Jackson v. Minnesota Life Insurance Co.District Court, E.D. North Carolina · 2017

7 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