Legal Opinion

Sellers v. Ochs

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided November 21, 2006No. COA06-235PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

WYNN, Judge.

A Rule 59 motion “cannot be used as a means to reargue matters already argued or to put forth arguments which were not made but could have been made” at the trial court level. 1 Here, Plaintiff Gloria Sellers filed a Rule 59 motion to present additional case law to the trial court in an effort to have an order of summary judgment set aside. Because Ms. Sellers only appeals from the denial of that motion, for which she failed to show any grounds for relief from judgment, we dismiss.

Both parties agree that in 1994, Defendant Cammie Smith Ochs became the record owner of a piece of…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Collins v. DavisCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1984
  2. Craven Regional Medical Authority v. N.C. Department of Health & Human ServicesCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2006
  3. Smith v. JohnsonCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1997
  4. Chee v. EstesCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1994
  5. Penland v. . WellsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1931

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

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Ehmann v. Medflow, Inc.North Carolina Business Court · 2020
  2. In re A.E.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 2021
  3. In re A.E., J.V., E.V., and A.V.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 2021
  4. In re W.K.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 2020
  5. Prouse v. Bituminous Casualty Corp.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 2012

1 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