Gardner v. Gardner
Court of Appeals of North Carolina
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
- Saylors v. RiggsbeeTennessee Supreme Court · 1976
- United States v. National City Lines, Inc.District Court, S.D. California · 1948
- Mid-South Milling Co., Inc. v. Loret Farms, Inc.Tennessee Supreme Court · 1975
- Bateman v. . SterrettSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1931
- Smith v. MercerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1970
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.