Nickels v. Nickels
Court of Appeals of North Carolina
1Opinion of the Court
HEDRICK, Judge.
Defendant’s “motion to set aside consent judgment” does not contain the rule number pursuant to which the motion was made as contemplated by Rule 6 of the General Rules of Practice for the Superior and District Courts, nor does the order of Judge Keiger granting the motion specify the rule number; however, Judge Keiger declared the consent judgment entered 12 January 1978 by Judge Alexander to be “void.” We assume, therefore, that defendant’s motion was made and allowed pursuant to G.S. § 1A-1, Rule 60(b)(4), which in pertinent part provides: “On motion and upon such terms as…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Gardiner v. MaySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1916
- Gardiner v. . MaySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1916
- Stanley v. CoxSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1961
- Brady v. Town of Chapel HillSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1971
- Ledford v. . LedfordSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1948
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Few v. Hammack Enterprises, Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1999
- Sea Ranch II Owners Association, Inc. v. Sea Ranch II, Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 2006
- J&M Aircraft Mobile T-Hangar, Inc. v. Johnston County Airport AuthorityCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2004
- Jenkins v. Richmond CountyCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1995
- Brown v. WindhomCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1991
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.