Legal Opinion

Boyd v. Marsh

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided July 1, 1980No. 7921DC1129PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ARNOLD, Judge.

It is well-established that a party served with a summons must give the matter the attention which a person of ordinary prudence gives to his important business, and failure to do so is not excusable neglect under G.S. 1A-1, Rule 60(b)(1). See Ellison v. White, 3 N.C. App. 235, 164 S.E. 2d 511 (1968); Meir v. Walton, 2 N.C. App. 578, 163 S.E. 2d 403 (1968) and cases cited therein. In the instant case the facts do not support the court’s conclusion that defendant’s failure to answer was excusable. Defendant has a ninth grade education and can read and write. He previously has…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Meir v. WaltonCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1968
  2. Ellison v. WhiteCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1968

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Moore v. City of RaleighCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1999
  2. Grant v. CoxCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1992
  3. In Re LaughinghouseUnited States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. North Carolina · 1984
  4. In re Uiterwyk Corp.United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida · 1986
  5. Coleman v. ColemanCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1985

3 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