Legal Opinion

Randolph v. Schuyler

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided January 25, 1974No. 92PublishedCited by 16 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

LAKE, Justice.

We concur in the holding of the Court of Appeals that under Rule 8(a), Rules of Civil Procedure, the allegations of the complaint are sufficient to permit the admission in evidence of the second contract between the plaintiff and the defendant and her husband (Exhibit B). This, however, does not dispose of the matter. The question which remains is, Upon all of the evidence, was the plaintiff entitled to a summary judgment for $4,333.33?

In Casket Co. v. Wheeler, 182 N.C. 459, 109 S.E. 378, 19 A.L.R. 391 (1921), in holding a contingent fee contract between an attorney and his…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Gair v. PeckNew York Court of Appeals · 1959
  2. Pocius v. HalvorsenIllinois Supreme Court · 1963
  3. Tonn v. ReuterWisconsin Supreme Court · 1959
  4. Thomas v. Turner's Adm'rSupreme Court of Virginia · 1890
  5. Casket Co. v. . WheelerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1921

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

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. Vernon, Vernon, Wooten, Brown & Andrews, P. A. v. MillerCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1985
  2. Pritchett & Burch, PLLC v. BoydCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2005
  3. Olive v. WilliamsCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1979
  4. Rock v. BallouSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1974
  5. Citizens Bank v. C & H Construction & Paving Co.New Mexico Court of Appeals · 1979

11 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