Legal Opinion

Patuxent Development Co. v. Bearden

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided January 31, 1947PublishedCited by 21 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSeawell, J.

Since tbe defendant made ber motion to strike witbin tbe statutory period ber demand to bave irrelevant and redundant matter stricken from tbe complaint comes bere for review as a matter of right and not of judicial discretion. G. S., 1-153; Herndon v. Massey, 217 N. C., 614, 8 S. E. (2d), 914; Hill v. Stansbury, 221 N. C., 339, 20 S. E. (2d), 308; Patterson v. R. R., 214 N. C., 38, 198 S. E., 364. If tbe matter sought to be deleted is found to be of tbe character described in tbe statute, tbe court has no alternative but to strike it out. It is not only a right of tbe defendant, but one of…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Cash Register Co. v. . TownsendSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1905
  2. Herndon v. . MasseySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1940
  3. Patterson v. . R. R.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1938
  4. Cotton Mills v. . Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1940
  5. Hill v. . StansburySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1942

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

3Cited by21 opinions

  1. Terry v. TerrySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1981
  2. Calloway v. WyattSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1957
  3. Rhodes v. JonesSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1950
  4. Watts v. Cumberland County Hospital System, Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1986
  5. Azure Dolphin, LLC v. BartonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 2018

16 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