Legal Opinion

Kleinfeldt v. Shoney's of Charlotte, Inc.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided October 17, 1962No. 244PublishedCited by 15 opinions

1Per curiam

Plaintiff’s second assignment of error reads: “Assignment of error No. 2: The Court’s finding of facts. Exception No. 2.” When we refer to the preceding page of the record, we find a grouping of exceptions, and exception No. 2 is to the court’s finding of fact No. 4, without stating what finding of fact No. 4 is. This assignment of error is not sufficient in form to present the alleged errors relied on, for the reason that we have repeatedly held that Rules 19 (3) and 21, Rules of Practice in the Supreme Court, 254 N.C. 783 et seq., require an assignment of error to state clearly and…

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. City of Goldsboro v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1957
  2. Steelman v. . BenfieldSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1948
  3. Harrington v. RiceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1957
  4. Dunn v. . WilsonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1936
  5. EL LOWIE & COMPANY v. AtkinsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1956

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

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. Gasque v. StateSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1967
  2. Guthrie v. RaySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1977
  3. Fountain v. PatrickCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1980
  4. Kimmel v. BrettCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1988
  5. State v. PearsonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1962

10 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