Renner v. Hawk
Court of Appeals of North Carolina
1Opinion of the Court
ARNOLD, Chief Judge.
Plaintiff and his attorney, respondent Patrice Solberg, first argue that the trial court lost jurisdiction over the case once it was voluntarily dismissed, and therefore it was error subsequently to entertain a motion for sanctions. Appellants attempt to distinguish this case from others because of the fact that defendants filed the motion for sanctions after the voluntary dismissal was entered, rather than before the action was terminated. We find this distinction unimportant, and appellants’ argument to the contrary unpersuasive.
Under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, Rule…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1990
- White v. New Hampshire Department of Employment SecuritySupreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Szabo Food Service, Inc. v. Canteen CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1987
- Turner v. Duke UniversitySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1989
- State v. WallaceCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1991
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Polygenex International, Inc. v. Polyzen, Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1999
- Static Control Components, Inc. v. VoglerCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2002
- Stocum v. OakleyCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2007
- Hill v. HillCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2005
- Breedlove Ex Rel. Howard v. AEROTRIMCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2001
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.