Webb v. James
Court of Appeals of North Carolina
1Opinion of the Court
MARTIN (Robert M.), Judge.
Defendants by their first assignment of error contend the trial court erred in refusing to grant defendants a continuance given the unavailability of one of the defendants. 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. Skankle v. Shankle, 289 N.C. 473, 223 S.E. 2d 380 (1976). In the present case, when the motion came to be heard on 12 March 1979, defense counsel…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Shankle v. ShankleSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1976
- Taylor v. Triangle Porsche-Audi, Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1975
- North American Acceptance Corp. v. SamuelsCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1971
- Roland v. W & L Motor Lines, Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1977
- In Re Foreclosure of Deed of Trust From GardnerCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1974
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Lexis-Nexis v. Travishan Corp.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 2002
- Raleigh-Durham Airport Authority v. HowardCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1987
- Bailey v. GoodingCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1983
- Lemon v. CombsCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2004
- Thomas v. MurryOhio Court of Appeals · 2021
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.