Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Brooks v. Giesey

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided July 7, 1992No. 913SC163Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Judge GREENE

concurring in part and dissenting in part.

Rule 11

I agree with the majority that the trial court was without authority pursuant to the legal and factual sufficiency prongs of Rule 11 to impose as a sanction for filing the complaint that the plaintiffs and their attorney pay the defendants’ attorney’s fees. Whether the complaint complies with the legal and factual sufficiency prongs of Rule 11 is determined “as of the time it was signed,” Bryson v. Sullivan, 330 N.C. 644, 657, 412 S.E.2d 327, 333 (1992), and is not affected by subsequently occurring events. Therefore, because on 4…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Chambers v. Nasco, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1991
  2. Bryson v. SullivanSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1992
  3. Sunamerica Financial Corp. v. BonhamSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1991
  4. Taylor v. Taylor Products Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1992
  5. Kohn v. Mug-A-BugCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1989

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API