Legal Opinion

Tickle v. . Hobgood

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided January 5, 1938PublishedCited by 14 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtStagy, C. J.

An application for a bill of particulars under C. S., 534, or a motion to require a pleading to be made more definite and certain under 537, is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court, and his ruling thereon, made in the exercise of such discretion, is not reviewable on appeal, except perhaps in extreme cases. Temple v. Tel. Co., 205 N. C., 441, 171 S. E., 630; S. v. Bryant, 111 N. C., 693, 16 S. E., 326. Where however, as here, the court denies the motion as a matter of law, without the exercise of discretion, the defendant is entitled to have the application reconsidered and…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. State v. FullerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1894
  2. Townsend v. . WilliamsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1895
  3. State v. . FullerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1894
  4. State v. . WadfordSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1927
  5. State v. . BryantSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1892

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

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. Calloway v. Ford Motor CompanySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1972
  2. State v. LangSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1980
  3. Capps v. LynchSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1960
  4. Hogsed v. . PearlmanSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1938
  5. State v. JohnsonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1997

9 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