Legal Opinion

Phil Mechanic Construction Co. v. Haywood

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided March 16, 1982No. 8129SC425PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MORRIS, Chief Judge.

Petitioners cite authority for the proposition that the court erred in its dismissal of the proceeding for failure to prosecute, because there was no finding that petitioners engaged in delay tactics. They also contend that the court improperly dismissed the action on its own motion, and note that there is no indication *465in the order of the Superior Court with respect to whether the case was ever reached for hearing.

We deem it unnecessary to speak to the issues of deliberateness of delay, the source of the motion to dismiss, or whether the matter came to be heard, as…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Spalding Division of Questor Corp. v. DuBoseCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1980

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. State v. LinemannCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1999
  2. Phil Mechanic Const. Co., Inc. v. HaywoodCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1985
  3. Watson v. BrinkleyCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2011

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API