Legal Opinion · Dissent

Smith v. Starnes

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided August 12, 1986No. 424PA85Published

1DissentJustice Meyer

I dissent. There are two extraordinarily grievous faults in the majority opinion. First, Rule 4 of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure was applied incorrectly. The rule provides for service of summons by designated methods. Our cases have consistently declared: “ ‘[WJhere a statute provides for service of summons or notices in the progress of a cause by certain persons or by designated methods, the specified requirements must be complied with or there is no valid service.’ ” Guthrie v. Ray, 293 N.C. 67, 69, 235 S.E. 2d 146, 148 (1967) (quoting S. Lowman v. Ballard & Co., 168 N.C. 16,…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1950
  2. BW Acceptance Corporation v. SpencerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1966
  3. Wiles v. Welparnel Const. Co., Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1978
  4. Guthrie v. RaySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1977
  5. Lowman v. . BallardSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1915

3 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