Legal Opinion · Dissent

Henry v. Deen

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided January 10, 1984No. 200A83Published

1DissentJustice Martin

I dissent from the majority’s holding in part I of its opinion. I find that plaintiff has complied with Rule 15(c) with respect to the amended complaint against defendant Niazi. Paragraph 6 of the original complaint places Niazi on notice of the transactions to be proved pursuant to the amended pleading. It alleges plaintiff is entitled to damages for the wrongful death of Henry caused by the negligence of defendants Deen, Hall, and Niazi acting jointly and severally. The original pleading gives defendant Niazi notice of the events involved. Burcl v. Hospital, 306 N.C. 214, 293 S.E. 2d 85…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Sutton v. DukeSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1970
  2. Newman v. FreemanDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1966
  3. Shugar v. GuillSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1981
  4. Burcl v. North Carolina Baptist Hospital, Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1982
  5. State Highway Commission v. ThorntonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1967

5 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