Legal Opinion

King v. Grindstaff

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided December 12, 1973No. 30PublishedCited by 176 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MOORE, Justice.

The sole question presented on this appeal is whether the trial court erred in allowing plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment based on his plea of res judicata, leaving only the issue of damages for trial.

Res judicata deals with the effect of a former judgment in favor of a party upon a subsequent attempt by the other party to relitigate the same cause of action. In Masters v. Dunstan, 256 N.C. 520, 124 S.E. 2d 574 (1962), this Court stated:

“ ‘It is fundamental that a final judgment, rendered on the merits, by a court of competent jurisdiction, is conclusive of rights,…

2Cases cited35 opinions

  1. Commissioner v. SunnenSupreme Court of the United States · 1948
  2. Cromwell v. County of SacSupreme Court of the United States · 1877
  3. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co. v. SchendelSupreme Court of the United States · 1926
  4. Masters v. DunstanSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1962
  5. Graham v. North Carolina Butane Gas Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1950

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

3Cited by176 opinions

  1. Matter of BallardSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1984
  2. Thomas M. McInnis & Associates, Inc. v. HallSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1986
  3. In re T.N.H.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 2019
  4. A & P General Contractors, Inc. v. Asociación Caná, Inc.Supreme Court of Puerto Rico · 1981
  5. State v. BrooksSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1994

171 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