Franklin v. Winn Dixie Raleigh, Inc.
Court of Appeals of North Carolina
1Dissent
*41Judge Wynn
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent from Part III of the majority’s opinion because I believe our Rules of Civil Procedure should permit plaintiffs to amend their complaint.
This entire pleading imbroglio would have been avoided if plaintiffs had simply filed their complaint and served “Winn Dixie Raleigh, Inc.” as the defendant instead of “Winn Dixie Stores, Inc.” Plaintiffs would then be allowed to proceed with their suit. Since plaintiffs identified the defendant by its general corporate name rather than the specific name of the owner of the Raleigh store, the majority holds that…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Schiavone v. FortuneSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Mauney v. MorrisSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1986
- Burcl v. North Carolina Baptist Hospital, Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1982
- Smith v. City of CharlotteCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1986
- Johnson v. JohnsonCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1972
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.