Brady v. Fulghum
Supreme Court of North Carolina
1Opinion of the Court
EXUM, Justice.
Plaintiff brought this action for monies allegedly due under a contract for construction of a private dwelling. In affirming summary judgment for defendants, the Court of Appeals concluded that plaintiff, a general contractor, had not complied “substantially” with the statutory licensing requirements. See N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 87-1 to 87-15.2 (1981). We agree with the result reached by the Court of Appeals, but we reject the substantial compliance doctrine which that court has developed in earlier licensing cases and which formed the basis of its analysis in this case.
I
In February…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Bryan Builders Supply v. MidyetteSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1968
- Latipac, Inc. v. Superior Court of Marin CountyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1966
- Murphy v. Campbell Investment Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1971
- Olsen v. ReeseUtah Supreme Court · 1948
- Arnold Const. Co., Inc. v. Arizona Board of RegentsArizona Supreme Court · 1973
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by34 opinions
- Ron Medlin Construction v. HarrisSupreme Court of North Carolina · 2010
- Joe Newton, Inc. v. TullCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1985
- Hall v. SimmonsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1991
- Coats v. JonesSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1983
- Sample v. MorganSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1984
29 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.