Legal Opinion

Hollowell v. Carlisle

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided June 21, 1994No. 938SC618PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ORR, Judge.

The central question is whether the trial court may, upon a showing of excusable neglect, grant an extension of time under these facts to serve a dormant summons where no alias and pluries summons has been obtained. In the court below, the trial court concluded when neither an endorsement nor an alias and pluries summons was issued within ninety days of the original filing that the action was discontinued pursuant to Rule 4(e), and that the court had no authority to grant the plaintiff’s motion for extension of time pursuant to Rule 6(b).

The plaintiff argues to the Court that…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Lemons v. Old Hickory Council, Boy Scouts of America, Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1988
  2. Lemons v. Old Hickory CouncilSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1988
  3. Dozier v. CrandallCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1992

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. In re A.B.D.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 2005
  2. Wetchin v. Ocean Side Corp.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 2005
  3. In re N.E.L.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 2009
  4. SMITH v. UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA HEALTH CARE SYSTEMDistrict Court, M.D. North Carolina · 2021
  5. Valentine v. SoloskoCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2020

1 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