Legal Opinion

Gardner v. Gardner

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided November 20, 1979No. 798DC262PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

HILL, Judge.

From the outset, it is clear that the language of the amendment is mandatory. If the defendant makes the motion for change of venue, the judge shall grant it.

Furthermore, it is clear that the amendment to G.S. 50-3 is retroactive. “[Statutes or amendments pertaining to procedure are generally held to operate retrospectively, where the statute or amendment does not contain language clearly showing a contrary intention.” (Citations omitted.) Smith v. Mercer, 276 N.C. 329, 338, 172 S.E. 2d 489. G.S. 50-3 contains no such language.

Venue means the place of trial. Lovegrove v.…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Saylors v. RiggsbeeTennessee Supreme Court · 1976
  2. United States v. National City Lines, Inc.District Court, S.D. California · 1948
  3. Mid-South Milling Co., Inc. v. Loret Farms, Inc.Tennessee Supreme Court · 1975
  4. Bateman v. . SterrettSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1931
  5. Smith v. MercerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1970

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

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Cynthia Morrison, Individually and on behalf of Ernest Morrison v. Ricardo Vasquez, M.D., and Vascular Center & Vein Clinic of Southern Indiana, Kevin O'Connor, M.D.Indiana Court of Appeals · 2018

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API