Legal Opinion

LaNeve v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided October 31, 1934PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtStacy, C. J.

The petition for removal, besides showing the presence of the requisite jurisdictional amount, asserts a right of removal on the grounds of diverse citizenship, and alleges (1) fraudulent joinder of resident defendants, and (2) separable controversy.

The trial court held that the case was controlled by the line of decisions of which Cox v. Lumber Co., 193 N. C., 28, 136 S. E., 254, Johnson v. Lumber Co., 189 N. C., 81, 126 S. E., 165, and Rea v. Mirror Co., 158 N. C., 24, 73 S. E., 116, may be cited as fairly illustrative; while the appellant contends that the principles announced in Givens v.…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Crisp v. Champion Fibre Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1927
  2. Rea v. Standard Mirror Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1911
  3. Givens v. Savona Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1928
  4. Cox v. Whitmer-Parsons Pulp & Lumber Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1927
  5. Johnson v. Blackwood Lumber Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1925

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

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Allison v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1938
  2. Kelly v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1936

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

Powered by the Exa API