Thorpe v. DeMent
Court of Appeals of North Carolina
1Opinion of the Court
JOHNSON, Judge.
The sole question presented by this appeal is whether the record discloses that the plaintiffs’ claim is barred by the running of the statute of limitations. If so, defendants were entitled to judgment as a matter of law, and summary judgment under G.S. 1A-1, Rule 56, was appropriate. Brantley v. Dunstan, 10 N.C. App. 706, 179 S.E. 2d 878 (1971).
The defendants argue that the malpractice action was not filed within three years of accrual of the cause of action and that plaintiffs may not proceed under the latent or non-apparent injury discovery proviso of G.S. 145(c) because…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Shearin v. LloydSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1957
- Ballenger v. CrowellCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1978
- Jewell v. PriceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1965
- Massey v. LittonNevada Supreme Court · 1983
- Brantley v. DunstanCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1971
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Podrebarac v. Horace, Talley, Pharr, & Lowndes, P.A.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 2013
- McGahren v. SaengerCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1995
- Teague v. Randolph Surgical Associates, P.A.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1998
- Cincinnati Insurance v. Centech Building Corp.District Court, M.D. North Carolina · 2003
- Brittain v. CinnocaCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1993
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.