Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Justus v. Rosner

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided December 21, 2018No. 255A17Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Chief Justice MARTIN concurring in part and dissenting in part.

I agree with the majority that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it determined that plaintiff was entitled to some form of relief under North Carolina Rule of Civil Procedure 59(a)(7).1 I also agree with the majority, as well as both parties and the dissent, that the relief that the trial court ordered was not permitted under Rule 59 and that only a new trial, in whole or in part, could have been granted. I do not agree with the majority, however, that either we or the Court of Appeals should usurp the critical…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Whitacre Partnership v. Biosignia, Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 2004
  2. Worthington v. BynumSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1982
  3. Lemons v. Old Hickory Council, Boy Scouts of America, Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1988
  4. Augur v. AugurSupreme Court of North Carolina · 2002
  5. Concerned Citizens of Brunswick County Taxpayers Ass'n v. State Ex Rel. RhodesSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1991

2 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