Legal Opinion

Suggs v. Carroll

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided September 3, 1985No. 8513SC79PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

HEDRICK, Chief Judge.

Defendants first assign error to the denial of their oral motion to continue the case because of the unavailability of one of the defendants at the beginning of the trial. It is a well-established rule in North Carolina that granting a motion for a continuance is within the discretion of the trial court. Continuances are not favored, and the party seeking a continuance bears the burden of showing sufficient grounds. Shankle v. Shankle, 289 N.C. 473, 223 S.E. 2d 380 (1976). The record in the present case discloses that when the case was called for trial defendants made a…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Gillikin v. BurbageSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1965
  2. Shankle v. ShankleSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1976
  3. Shugar v. GuillSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1981
  4. Keziah v. Seaboard Air Line Railroad CompanySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1968
  5. Anthony v. Teachers Protective UnionSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1934

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Hawkins v. HawkinsCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1991
  2. Campbell v. Pitt County Memorial Hospital, Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1987
  3. Campbell v. Pitt County Memorial Hospital, Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1987

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

Powered by the Exa API