Legal Opinion

Crossman v. Moore

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided June 21, 1994No. 9326SC907PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ARNOLD, Chief Judge.

Plaintiff contends the trial court erred in refusing to allow relation back of the amended complaint. Rule 15(c), which provides when an amended pleading will relate back, reads as follows:(c) Relation back of amendments. — A claim asserted in an amended pleading is deemed to have been interposed at the time the claim in the original pleading was interposed, unless the original pleading does not give notice of the transactions, occur rences, or series of transactions or occurrences, to be proved pursuant to the amended pleading.

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 15(c) (1990).…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Schiavone v. FortuneSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  2. In Re the Appeal From the Civil PenaltySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1989
  3. Ring Drug Co. v. Carolina Medicorp Enterprises, Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1989
  4. Stevens v. NimocksCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1986

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Piland v. Hertford County Board of CommissionersCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2000
  2. Medford v. Haywood County Hospital Foundation, Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1994
  3. Medford v. HAYWOOD COUNTY HOSP. FOUND. INC.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1994
  4. Franklin v. Winn Dixie Raleigh, Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1994
  5. Franklin v. Winn Dixie Raleigh, Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1994

1 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