Legal Opinion
Hardbarger v. Deal
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Decided October 31, 1962No. 314PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtBobbitt, J.
The sole question is whether, upon the facts set forth in the judgment, plaintiff’s action is barred by the statute of limitations.
The two-year statute of limitations applies to plaintiff’s alleged cause of action. G.S. (Vol. 1A) 1-53(4); G.S. (Vol. 2A) 28-173, as amended by Ch. 246, Session Laws of 1951; McCrater v. Engineering Corp., 248 N.C. 707, 708, 104 S.E. 2d 858; Stamey v. Membership Corp., 249 N.C. 90, 94, 105 S.E. 2d 282; Hall v. Carroll, 253 N.C. 220, 116 S.E. 2d 459.
“The time within which an act is to be done, as provided by law, shall be computed by excluding the first and…
2Cases cited21 opinions
- Town of Blowing Rock v. GregorieSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1956
- Poetz v. Sarah Mix & Delaware, Lackawanna & Western RailroadSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1951
- Faizan v. Grain Dealers Mutual Insurance CompanySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1961
- McCrater v. Stone & Webster Engineering Corp.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1958
- Geneva Cooperage Co. v. BrownCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1906
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Rowan County Board of Education v. United States Gypsum Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1992
- Feibus & Co., Inc. v. Godley Const. Co., Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1980
- Bowling v. Webb Gas Co. of LebanonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1974
- Helen Trout Arrowood, of the Estate of James Broadus Arrowood, Deceased v. General Motors CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1976
- Keilman v. Dar Tile CompanyNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1964
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.