Legal Opinion

Lusk v. Crawford Paint Co.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided May 19, 1992No. 9121SC542PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

WELLS, Judge.

Through his various assignments of error, plaintiff brings forward the questions of (1) whether the trial court correctly found that he had failed to comply with Rules 3, 4 and 11 of the Rules of Civil Procedure for failure “to properly and timely issue and serve process and complaint,” and (2) whether the trial court correctly found that plaintiff failed to comply with Rule 41 for “failure to timely prosecute” the action. We answer both questions in the negative and reverse.

The record clearly shows that plaintiff did not violate or fail to comply with the provisions of Rules 3…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Childress v. Forsyth County Hospital Authority, Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1984
  2. Smith v. QuinnSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1989
  3. Green v. EureCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1973
  4. Jones v. StoneCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1981
  5. Hasty v. CarpenterCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1979

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Cohen v. McLawhornCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2010
  2. SMITH v. UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA HEALTH CARE SYSTEMDistrict Court, M.D. North Carolina · 2021

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

Powered by the Exa API