Legal Opinion
Munchak Corp. v. Caldwell
Court of Appeals of North Carolina
Decided July 18, 1978No. 7718SC841PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ARNOLD, Judge.
I
The plaintiffs’ first contention is that the trial court erred (1) in denying plaintiffs’ motion to amend their complaint to allege fraud, (2) in instructing the jury that fraud was not an issue, and (3) in refusing to instruct the jury that fraud of an agent is chargeable to a principal with knowledge.
Plaintiffs made their motion to amend pursuant to G.S. 1A-1, Rule 15 which reads in pertinent part:
“(a) Amendments. — A party may amend his pleading once as a matter of course at any time before a responsive pleading is served or, if the pleading is one to which no responsive…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Gerard M. Monod and Alys Monod v. Futura, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, Highlands, Inc., a Colorado Corporation, and Whipple Van Ness JonesCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1969
- Eudy v. EudySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1975
- Marsha Lee Wallin, as Administratrix of the Estate of Carl R. Wallin, Deceased v. Allen Ernest Fuller and Nationwide Mutual Insurance CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1973
- Mbi Motor Company, Inc. v. Lotus/east, Inc., and Dutchess Auto CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1974
- James K. Bettes v. Stonewall Insurance CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1973
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- United Laboratories, Inc. v. KuykendallCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1991
- Tyson v. Ciba-Geigy Corp.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1986
- J. M. Westall & Co. v. Windswept View of Asheville, Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1990
- Howell v. WatersCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1986
- Boykin v. KimCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2005