Legal Opinion

Robinson v. Parker

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided October 15, 1996No. COA95-890PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

EAGLES, Judge.

We note at the outset that each defendant’s “motion to quash issuance and service of process” fails to cite “the rule number or numbers under which [defendants are] proceeding.” General Rules of Practice for the Superior Court, Rule 6 (1985). While this defect itself at times may be fatal, Sherman v. Myers, 29 N.C. App. 29, 30, 222 S.E.2d 749, 750, disc. review denied, 290 N.C. 309, 225 S.E.2d 830 (1976), the trial court in its discretion did not find it so here. We treat each defendant’s motion as one challenging the sufficiency of process pursuant to Rule 12, and we review the…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Estrada v. BurnhamSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1986
  2. Howard v. Ocean Trail Convalescent CenterCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1984
  3. Smith v. StarnesSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1986
  4. Sherman v. MyersCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1976
  5. Sellers v. High Point Memorial Hospital, Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1990

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Melton v. StammCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2000

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

Powered by the Exa API