Legal Opinion

Veazey v. City of Durham

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided February 3, 1950No. 737PublishedCited by 31 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtErvin, J.

Tbe order refusing a reference shows on its face tbat tbe court denied tbe motion for a compulsory reference as a matter of discretion. This being so, the appeal necessarily proceeds on tbe assumption tbat the court should have granted a compulsory reference because tbe defendant was entitled to demand tbat mode of trial as a matter of right in tbe action at bar.

Tbe statute which controls tbe granting of compulsory references is embodied in G.S. 1-189. It provides tbat “where tbe parties do not consent, the court may, upon tbe application of either, or of its own motion, direct a reference”…

2Cases cited37 opinions

  1. Fitzgerald v. HaywardSupreme Court of Missouri · 1872
  2. Rector v. . RectorSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1923
  3. Harmon v. MartinIllinois Supreme Court · 1947
  4. Fortune v. . WatkinsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1886
  5. Royster v. . WrightSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1896

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

3Cited by31 opinions

  1. Craig Ex Rel. Craig v. New Hanover County Board of EducationSupreme Court of North Carolina · 2009
  2. Bailey v. GoodingSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1980
  3. Fabrikant v. Currituck CountyCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2005
  4. Hamilton v. MORTGAGE INFORMATION SERVICES, INC.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 2011
  5. Williams v. WilliamsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1964

26 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