Legal Opinion

Armstrong v. Howard

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided October 10, 1956No. 241PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Per curiam

The rules promulgated by this Court are intended to aid in the performance of its duties and to assure to litigants that consideration of the asserted errors which the parties have a right to expect of the Court. The rule, 19(3), which requires the grouping and assignment of errors has been repeatedly declared to require the asserted error to be clearly and distinctly set out in the assignment so that the Court shall not be compelled to go beyond the assignment itself to ascertain the precise question involved. A voyage of discovery through the records to pinpoint the asserted error should…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Steelman v. . BenfieldSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1948
  2. State v. . BittingsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1934
  3. Thompson v. . R. R.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1908
  4. Cecil v. . Lumber CompanySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1929
  5. In Re Will of BeardSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1932

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

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Harrington v. RiceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1957
  2. EL LOWIE & COMPANY v. AtkinsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1956
  3. General Metals, Inc. v. Truitt Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1963
  4. Hunt v. DavisSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1958
  5. Pamlico County v. DavisSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1959

4 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