Schell v. Coleman
Court of Appeals of North Carolina
1Opinion of the Court
HILL, Judge.
We first address the merits of Coleman’s cross-assignment of error by which he argues the trial court erred in failing to dismiss plaintiffs action on the basis of the flagrant violation of Rule 8(a)(2) and the resulting adverse publicity. Rule 8(a)(2) states, in relevant part:
[I]n all professional malpractice actions . . . wherein the matter in controversy exceeds . . . ten thousand dollars ($10,000), the pleading shall not state the demand for monetary relief, but shall state that the relief demanded is for damages . . . in excess of ten thousand dollars. . . .
Plaintiff clearly…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Motor Inn Management, Inc. v. Irvin-Fuller Development Co.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1980
- City of Durham v. MansonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1974
- Jones v. BoyceCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1983
- Harris v. MareadyCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1983
3Cited by3 opinions
- Stokes v. Wilson and Redding Law FirmCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1984
- Miller v. FerreeCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1987
- Rabinowitz v. SuvillagaNorth Carolina Business Court · 2019