Legal Opinion

Murphy v. Hinton

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided July 7, 2015No. COA14–1230PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

DIETZ, Judge.

*96The issue raised in this appeal is whether a complaint that does not satisfy the notice pleading requirements of Rule 8(a)(1) can benefit from the one-year filing extension of Rule 41(a)(1) following a voluntary dismissal. Our Supreme Court has held that "in order for a timely filed complaint to toll the statute of limitations and provide the basis for a one-year 'extension' by way of a Rule 41(a)(1) voluntary dismissal without prejudice, the complaint must conform in all respects to the rules of pleading." Estrada v. Burnham, 316 N.C. 318, 323, 341 S.E.2d 538, 542 (1986)…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Brisson v. Kathy A. Santoriello, M.D., P.A.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 2000
  2. Estrada v. BurnhamSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1986
  3. Wake County v. Hotels.com, L.P.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 2014
  4. Robinson v. EntwistleCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1999

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Bb&t Boli Plan Tr. v. Mass. Mut. Life Ins. Co.North Carolina Business Court · 2016
  2. Gantt v. City of HickoryCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2023
  3. Holcomb v. Landquest Ltd. Liab. Co.North Carolina Business Court · 2017

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

Powered by the Exa API