1 Boyd v. Sandling NO. COA (Filed 15 March 2011) Negligence personal injury sufficiency of service of process statute of limitations The trial court erred by dismissing plaintiff s complaint for personal injury arising out of an automobile accident based on alleged insufficient process, and the case was remanded for further proceedings. Defendant was properly served, both individually and as executrix of an estate, within the time prescribed by N.C.G.S. 1A-1, Rule 4. Further, plaintiff brought her suit before the expiration of either the statute of limitations under N.C.G.S. 1-52(16) for personal injury due to negligence or the time limit set by the non-claim statute under N.C.G.S. 28A-19-3(f).
2 NO. COA NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 15 March 2011 SANDRA D. BOYD, Plaintiff, v. Vance County No. 09 CVS 388 ALTA D. SANDLING, INDIVIDUALLY, AND AS EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF JAMES ALFRED SANDLING, JR., SDLG HOLDINGS, INC. D/B/A SANDLING FUNERAL HOME, INC., Defendants. Appeal by plaintiff from order entered 12 February 2010 by Judge Orlando F. Hudson, Jr., in Vance County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 17 November Arlene L. Velasquez-Colon for plaintiff. Haywood, Denny & Miller, L.L.P., by Robert E. Levin, for defendants. ELMORE, Judge. Sandra D. Boyd (plaintiff) appeals an order dismissing her claim against Alta D. Sandling (defendant), executrix of the Estate of James A. Sandling, Jr. (Sandling Estate). After careful consideration, we reverse the order below. On 3 April 2009, plaintiff filed a complaint against defendant, individually, and as executrix of the Estate of James Alfred Sandling, Jr., and SDLG Holdings, Inc., d/b/a Sandling Funeral Home, Inc. According to the complaint, on 5 April 2006,
3 -2- plaintiff was the passenger in a vehicle driven by Danielle McDougal Lemay while Lemay drove south on Capital Boulevard in Franklinton. James Sandling was driving east on RP 1127 and failed to stop at the road s intersection with Capital Boulevard. Sandling entered the intersection, crossing Lemay s path southward. Lemay s vehicle collided with Sandling s. Sandling died as a result of the collision, and plaintiff was seriously injured. Plaintiff alleged that Sandling s negligence in driving his vehicle was the proximate cause of her injuries. She also alleged that defendant was the owner of the vehicle that caused her injuries. On 20 April 2006, defendant became the executrix of the Sandling Estate. On 29 January 2007, plaintiff s attorney sent a letter to defendant via certified mail. The letter was addressed to Alta D. Sandling[,] Executrix for the Estate of James L. Sandling, Jr. In relevant part, the letter stated: Please be advised that I am representing [plaintiff] Sandra Boyd, a passenger in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on April 5, 2006[,] involving your husband. Ms. Boyd sustained serious physical injuries during this accident. This letter serves as a notice to you in your official capacity as the executrix of your late husband s estate concerning Ms. Boyd s forthcoming claim against the Estate of James A. Sandling, Jr. Currently, the amount of that claim is not yet known. Please forward a copy of this letter to Mr. Sandling s insurance company. Plaintiff also sent copies of the Franklin County Clerk of Court and defendant s counsel, Currin & Dutra, LLP.
4 -3- On 22 August 2008, defendant submitted an affidavit of notice to creditors to the Franklin County Clerk of Court. The form includes two options, and defendant checked the second option, which should be checked only in cases where the decedent had no outstanding debts, or the personal representative has paid in full all known debts. The second option states: No copy of the Notice to Creditors required by G.S. 28A-14-1 was mailed or personally delivered because, after making a reasonable effort within the time provided by law, I am satisfied that there are no persons, firms or corporations having unsatisfied claims against the decedent. On 8 October 2008, defendant filed a final account of the Sandling Estate. Defendant was discharged from her duty as executrix, and the estate was closed. On 3 April 2009, plaintiff filed her complaint. On the same day, a summons was issued to Alta D. Sandling, Individually and as Executrix of the Estate of James Alfred Sandling, Jr., at her address in Youngsville. On 14 May 2009, plaintiff submitted an affidavit of service by certified mail, stating that Alta D. Sandling had been served a copy of the summons and complaint. Plaintiff included a photocopy of the return receipt, which includes defendant s signature and is dated 17 April On 11 June 2009, defendant, as executrix of the Sandling Estate, filed a response to plaintiff s complaint. Defendant moved to dismiss plaintiff s complaint for failure to state a claim, alleging that, because she had been discharged as executrix, she could not be a proper party to the suit as a matter of law. She
5 -4- also alleged that the complaint should be dismissed for insufficiency of process and insufficiency of service of process. On the same day, defendant, individually, answered plaintiff s complaint and moved to dismiss it for failure to state a claim. On plaintiff s motion, the Franklin County Clerk reopened the Sandling Estate on 30 December 2009 nunc pro tunc 8 October Specifically, the Clerk s order decreed: [T]he Estate of James A. Sandling, Jr[.,] shall be reopened, Alta D. Sandling shall continue to serve as the Executrix of the Estate of James A. Sandling, Jr., and Sandra D. Boyd s claims against the Estate of James A. Sandling, Jr.[,] shall be limited to any automobile insurance policies in effect at the time of the April 5, 2006[,] automobile accident involving James A. Sandling, Jr. 1 In her order, the Clerk concluded that [n]otice was given by Sandra Boyd s attorney to Executrix Alta D. Sandling and her representative concerning Sandra D. Boyd s forthcoming claim, and Executrix Alta D. Sandling did not mail a personal notice to known creditor, Sandra D. Boyd. After a hearing, the trial court entered an order granting the motion to dismiss filed by the Defendant, Alta D. Sandling, named as Executrix of the Estate of James Alfred Sandling, Jr.[,] pursuant to Rules of Civil Procedure, 12(b)(2), 12(b)(4), 12(b)(5), 12(b)(6) and due to the expiration of the applicable statutes of limitation. Plaintiff now appeals from that order. 1 We express no opinion as to the propriety of this order, and its inclusion herein should not be construed as an endorsement.
6 -5- Plaintiff argues that the trial court erred by granting defendant s motion to dismiss. We agree. We review a trial court s decision to dismiss an action based on the statute of limitations de novo. Ordinarily, a dismissal predicated upon the statute of limitations is a mixed question of law and fact. But where the relevant facts are not in dispute, all that remains is the question of limitations which is a matter of law. The statute of limitations having been pled, the burden is on the plaintiff to show that his cause of action accrued within the limitations period. Reece v. Smith, 188 N.C. App. 605, 607, 655 S.E.2d 911, 913 (2008) (quotations and citations omitted). According to the hearing transcript, the trial court dismissed plaintiff s complaint because process was insufficient. Plaintiff s appeal raises several other interrelated procedural questions, which we address as they arise in our analysis. Rule 4 of our Rules of Civil Procedure requires that, after a complaint is filed, a summons be issued within five days. N.C. Gen. Stat. 1A-1, Rule 4(a) (2009). The summons shall be directed to the defendant or defendants and shall notify each defendant to appear and to answer[.] Id., Rule 4(b). All actions... brought... against personal representatives... upon any cause of action or right to which the estate of the decedent is the real party in interest, must be brought against them in their representative capacity. N.C. Gen. Stat. 28A-18-3 (2009). If the complaint and the caption of the summons set out the appropriate defendant, any confusion arising from... ambiguity in the directory paragraph of the summons [is]
7 -6- eliminated[.] Storey v. Hailey, 114 N.C. App. 173, 178, 441 S.E.2d 602, 605 (1994); see also Hazelwood v. Bailey, 339 N.C. 578, 586, 453 S.E.2d 522, 526 (1995) (discussing several cases in which service was not defective even though the person to whom the summons was directed and the person named in the summons caption and complaint were not identical). The personal representative of an estate is a natural person. Storey, 114 N.C. App. at 179, 441 S.E.2d at 606. Service upon a natural person may be made by certified mail, return receipt requested, addressed to the party to be served, and delivering to the addressee. N.C. Gen. Stat. 1A-1, Rule 4(j)(1)c (2009). Personal service... must be made within 60 days after the date of the issuance of summons. When a summons has been served upon every party named in the summons, it shall be returned immediately to the clerk who issued it, with notation thereon of its service. Id., Rule 4(c). When there is neither endorsement by the clerk nor issuance of alias or pluries summons within [60 days], the action is discontinued as to any defendant not theretofore served with summons within the time allowed. Id., Rule 4(e). Here, plaintiff filed her complaint on 3 April 2009, and, on the same day, a summons was issued to defendant. Under Name Of Defendant(s) on the summons form, the summons lists SDLG 2 Holdings, Inc. D/B/A Sandling Funeral Home, Inc., and Alta D. Sandling, Individually and as Executrix of the Estate of James 2 It appears from the record that SDLG Holdings, Inc., was not served, and plaintiff indicates in her brief that she dismissed her complaint against SDLG Holdings, Inc.
8 -7- Alfred Sandling, Jr. Under To Each of the Defendant(s) Named Below and Name And Address Of Defendant 2 on the summons form, the summons lists Alta D. Sandling and her address in Youngsville. The caption of the complaint names plaintiff in her individual capacity and her capacity as executrix of the Sandling Estate. The record includes an affidavit of service filed by plaintiff s counsel, which states [t]hat a copy of the Summons and Complaint filed in this action were deposited in the United States Mail by certified mail, return receipt requested, to the Defendant, Alta D. Sandling, to her last known address; that the Summons and Complaint were in fact received as evidenced by the signed return receipt attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. Defendant argues that the affidavit of service proves that the summons was only issued to Alta D. Sandling in her individual capacity, but we can find no authority for the proposition that the affidavit of service trumps the summons in this respect. It appears clear from the record before this Court that defendant was 3 properly served, both individually and as executrix of the Sandling Estate, within the time prescribed by Rule 4. We turn next to the time limits imposed by the nonclaim statute and the statute of limitations. In North Carolina, when a claim is brought against a decedent, there are two statutory 3 Plaintiff also asserts that the 12 February 2010 order dismissed her claim against defendant, individually, as well as her claim against the Sandling Estate. To allay plaintiff s fear, we note that the order only dismissed plaintiff s claim against defendant as the executrix of the Sandling Estate. The order had no effect on plaintiff s claim against defendant, individually. Defendant openly agrees.
9 -8- mechanisms that limit the time in which a claimant can bring the suit against the decedent s estate: (1) the non-claim statute (section 28A-19-3) and (2) the applicable statute of limitations. Azalea Garden Bd. & Care, Inc. v. Vanhoy, 196 N.C. App. 376, 386, 675 S.E.2d 122, 129 (2009). A cause of action may be barred by either or both of these statutes. Ragan v. Hill, 337 N.C. 667, 671, 447 S.E.2d 371, 374 (1994). The non-claim statute serves a different purpose and operates independently of the statute of limitations that may also be applicable to a given claim. Section 28A-19-3 is a part of Chapter 28A,... [which was] enacted... to provide faster and less costly procedures for administering estates. The time limitations prescribed by this section allow the personal representative to identify all claims to be made against the assets of the estate early on in the process of administering the estate. The statute also promotes the early and final resolution of claims by barring those not presented within the identified period of time. Id. Subsection 28A-19-3(a) applies to claims that arose against a decedent s estate before his death; with exceptions not applicable here, the statute requires such claims to be filed within ninety days of the date that either general notice to creditors is published or individual notices are sent to creditors. N.C. Gen. Stat. 28A-19-3(a) (2009). If a claim is not brought within the prescribed time period, the claim is barred. Id. However, when, as here, neither individual notices nor general notice were issued to creditors, claims otherwise barrable under subsection (a) are barred three years after the death of the decedent. See N.C. Gen. Stat. 28A-19-3(f) (2009) ( All claims barrable under the provisions of subsections (a) and (b) hereof shall, in any event,
10 -9- be barred if the first publication or posting of the general notice to creditors as provided for in G.S. 28A-14-1 does not occur within three years after the death of the decedent. ). The non-claim statute also addresses the intersection of statutes of limitation and the non-claim statute: Except as otherwise provided by subsection (f) of this section, no claim shall be barred by the statute of limitations which was not barred thereby at the time of the decedent s death, if the claim is presented within the period provided by subsection (a) hereof. N.C. Gen. Stat. 28A-19-3(c) (2009). The statute of limitations for personal injury due to negligence is three years. Latham v. Cherry, 111 N.C. App. 871, 873, 433 S.E.2d 478, 480 (1993) (citing N.C. Gen. Stat. 1-52(16)). Personal injury claims accrue when the bodily harm to the claimant... becomes apparent or ought reasonably to have become apparent to the claimant, whichever event first occurs. N.C. Gen. Stat. 1-52(16) (2009). Here, the bodily harm to plaintiff became apparent on the day of the car accident, 5 April 2006, which was also the day that James Sandling died. Accordingly, both the three-year statute of limitations and the three-year time limit set by 28A-19-3(f) began to run on 5 April 2006, and both time limits expired on 5 April Plaintiff brought her suit on 3 April 2009, before the expiration of either the statute of limitations or the time limit set by the non-claim statute. She named the estate s personal representative as a defendant, as required by statute. See N.C.
11 -10- Gen. Stat. 28A-18-3 (2009). The estate was closed at the time plaintiff brought her suit, but the executor of a closed estate may, in some circumstances, still be a proper defendant in a lawsuit. See In re Miles, 262 N.C. 647, 652, 138 S.E.2d 487, 491 (1964) ( [A]n order of discharge made by the probate court on a final accounting by an executor cannot do more in any event than discharge the executor from liability for the past. It does not destroy the executorship.... We do not believe the right of [the] petitioner can be defeated merely because the administratrix c. t. a. of the estate of Miles has filed her so-called final account and been discharged, when... [the] petitioner... commenced the action to recover damages for wrongful death within the statutory period. ) (emphases added; quotations and citations omitted). Neither defendant nor the trial court have offered any other support for the dismissal of plaintiff s case, nor is any apparent to us. Accordingly, we reverse the order dismissing plaintiff s complaint and remand to the trial court for further proceedings. Reversed. Judges HUNTER, Robert C., and CALABRIA concur.
COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED February 15, 2000 Cornelia G. Clark Acting Clerk, Court of Appeals of Wisconsin NOTICE This opinion is subject to further editing. If published, the official version
An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3)
Watson v. Price NO. COA10-1112 (Filed 19 April 2011) Medical Malpractice Rule 9(j) order extending statute of limitations not effective not filed An order under N.C.G.S. 1A-1, Rule 9(j) extending the statute
NO. COA11-713 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 6 December 2011 UNITRIN AUTO AND HOME INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. Cleveland County No. 09 CVS 2238 GREGORY SCOTT RIKARD, Executor of the Estate
NO. COA12-981 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 19 March 2013 TINA HARDISON and DALTON HARDISON, Plaintiffs, v. Craven County No. 10 CVS 01538 KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC., Defendant. 1. Motor Vehicles
USAA CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff v. UNIVERSAL UNDERWRITERS INSURANCE COMPANY, RAGSDALE MOTOR COMPANY, INC., and WILLIAM B. ROBERTS, Defendants No. COA99-971 (Filed 5 July 2000) Insurance--automobile--excess
NO. COA12-682 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 5 February 2013 MILDRED WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, v. Mecklenburg County No. 10 CVS 9849 SHONDU LAMAR LYNCH, TYISHA STAFFORD, THOMAS C. RUFF, JR., d/b/a THOMAS
NO. COA12-1176 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 2 April 2013 BOBBY ANGLIN, Plaintiff, v. Mecklenburg County No. 12 CVS 1143 DUNBAR ARMORED, INC. AND GALLAGER BASSETT SERVICES, INC., Defendants. Liens
NO. COA13-82 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 6 August 2013 INTEGON NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. Pitt County No. 11 CVS 2617 ELIZABETH CHRISTINA VILLAFRANCO, RAMSES VARGAS, by and through
SUBCHAPTER III. CRIMINAL PROCESS. Article 17. Criminal Process. 15A-301. Criminal process generally. (a) Formal Requirements. (1) A record of each criminal process issued in the trial division of the General
SMALL CLAIMS RULES Rule 501. Scope and Purpose (a) How Known and Cited. These rules for the small claims division for the county court are additions to C.R.C.P. and shall be known and cited as the Colorado
NO. COA12-1543 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 6 August 2013 MICHAEL K. TINSLEY, Employee, Plaintiff, v. North Carolina Industrial Commission CITY OF CHARLOTTE, I.C. No. 891273 Employer, Self-Insured,
NO. COA12-641 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 15 January 2013 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. Forsyth County No. 10 CRS 057199 KELVIN DEON WILSON 1. Appeal and Error notice of appeal timeliness between
COURT OF APPEALS OF WISCONSIN PUBLISHED OPINION 2002 WI App 237 Case No.: 02-0261 Complete Title of Case: KENNETH A. FOLKMAN, SR., DEBRA J. FOLKMAN AND KENNETH A. FOLKMAN, JR., Petition for Review filed.
NO. COA12-1496 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 5 November 2013 TYKI SAKWAN IRVING, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. North Carolina Industrial Commission I.C. No. TA-22007 CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG BOARD OF EDUCATION,
SECOND DIVISION BARNES, P. J., MILLER and RAY, JJ. NOTICE: Motions for reconsideration must be physically received in our clerk s office within ten days of the date of decision to be deemed timely filed.
Cook v. Lowes Home Ctrs., Inc. NO. COA10-88 (Filed 18 January 2011) Workers Compensation foreign award subrogation lien in North Carolina reduced no abuse of discretion The trial court did not abuse its
AOC-E-850, July 2014 Estate Procedures for Executors, Administrators, Collectors By Affidavit, and Summary Administration IMPORTANT NOTES The Clerk of Superior Court in all 100 counties serves as the judge
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT July Term 2013 STEVEN STAUM, AS ADMINISTRATOR OF FRIEDWALD CENTER FOR REHABILITATION AND NURSING LLC, Appellant, GERBER, J. v. PETRINA RUBANO
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2006-CP-00404-COA TYRONE SANDERS APPELLANT v. AMBER C. ROBERTSON AND MISSISSIPPI FARM BUREAU CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY APPELLEES DATE OF JUDGMENT:
This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. 480A.08, subd. 3 (2014). STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A15-0083 Keith Melillo, Appellant, vs. Terry Arden
Page 1 LEXSEE 694 ne2d 1220 INDIANA FARMERS MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant-Intervenor, vs. KEVIN RICHIE, Appellee-Plaintiff. vs. LOUIS D. EVANS, SPECIAL ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF LEANNE M. SMITH,
Filed 2/11/15 Estate of Thomson CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified
DISTRICT COURT, EL PASO COUNTY, COLORADO Court address: P.O. Box 2980 270 South Tejon Street Colorado Springs, CO 80903 DATE FILED: July 29, 2014 2:12 PM CASE NUMBER: 2013CV2249 Phone Number: (719) 452-5279
ROBERTA HOLT, Guardian Ad Litem for MARY ELIZABETH HOLT, a minor; and ROBERTA HOLT, Plaintiffs, v. ATLANTIC CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant No. COA99-1481 (Filed 19 December 2000) 1. Insurance--automobile--parent
****************************************************** The officially released date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA ATHENA F. GRAINGER, as personal representative of the ESTATE OF SAMUEL GUS FELOS, Appellant, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION
NO. COA10-193 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 2 November 2010 CARL B. KINGSTON, Petitioner, v. Rockingham County No. 09 CVS 1286 LYON CONSTRUCTION, INC., and PMA INSURANCE GROUP, Respondents. Appeal
STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A13-1302 Robert Meeker, et al., Appellants, vs. IDS Property Casualty Insurance Company, Respondent. Filed April 21, 2014 Reversed and remanded Peterson, Judge Wright
NEW JERSEY JUDICIARY SPECIAL CIVIL A GUIDE TO THE COURT Superior Court of New Jersey Law Division Special Civil Part Special Civil A Guide to the Court page 1 Special Civil is a court of limited jurisdiction
No. 2-14-1168 Order filed October 15, 2015 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS PROBATE DIVISION ASHTABULA COUNTY, OHIO IN THE MATTER OF RULES OF COURT FOR THE COMMON PLEAS COURT PROBATE DIVISION ASHTABULA COUNTY, OHIO JUDGMENT ENTRY Pursuant to Superintendence
Creditor s Rights in Non-Real Estate Matters Christine McAlpin Taylor, JD Smith Debnam, Raleigh, NC What Paralegals should know about the Execution Process Christina McAlpin Taylor Smith Debnam Raleigh,
SECOND DIVISION JOHNSON, P.J., ELLINGTON and MIKELL, JJ. NOTICE: THIS OPINION IS UNCORRECTED AND SUBJECT TO REVISION BY THE COURT. September 22, 2009 In the Court of Appeals of Georgia A09A1222. WILLIAMS
NO. COA10-1178 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 6 September 2011 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA EX REL THE GUILFORD COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, Plaintiff, v. Guilford County No. 05 CR 40144 THEODORE DOUGLAS
NO. COA11-480 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 7 February 2012 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. Union County No. 10 CRS 738 DOUGLAS ELMER REEVES 1. Motor Vehicles driving while impaired sufficient evidence
2000 WI App 171 COURT OF APPEALS OF WISCONSIN PUBLISHED OPINION Case No.: 99-0776 Complete Title of Case: RONNIE PROPHET AND BADON PROPHET, V. PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR COMPANY, INC.,
In the Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District DIVISION THREE GERALD J. BAMBERGER, et al., ) No. ED92319 ) Appellants, ) ) Appeal from the Circuit Court vs. ) of St. Louis County ) 08SL-CC01435 CHARLES
Case 7:12-cv-00148-HL Document 43 Filed 11/07/13 Page 1 of 11 CHRISTY LYNN WATFORD, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA VALDOSTA DIVISION v. Plaintiff, Civil Action No.
Article 19. Claims Against the Estate. 28A-19-1. Manner of presentation of claims. (a) A claim against a decedent's estate must be in writing and state the amount or item claimed, or other relief sought,
Supreme Court No 2002-582- M.P. (PC 01-6255) Shannon Rivers : v. : American Commerce Insurance Company et al. : Present: Williams, C.J., Flanders, Goldberg, Flaherty, and Suttell, JJ. O P I N I O N PER
Present: All the Justices COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, ET AL. OPINION BY CHIEF JUSTICE LEROY R. HASSELL, SR. v. Record No. 060774 January 12, 2007 KAREN BURNS, ET AL. FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF CAMPBELL COUNTY
Local Rule 1301 Scope. Compulsory Arbitration Local Rule 1301 Scope. (1) The following civil actions shall first be submitted to and heard by a Board of Arbitrators: (a) (b) (c) (d) Civil actions, proceedings
Article 5. Limitations, Other than Real Property. 1-46. Periods prescribed. The periods prescribed for the commencement of actions, other than for the recovery of real property, are as set forth in this
NO. COA12-1221 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 19 March 2013 PAUL E. WALTERS, Plaintiff v. Nash County No. 12 CVS 622 ROY A. COOPER, III, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON October 21, 2008 Session DORIS JONES and BILLY JONES v. LISA JUNE COX Direct Appeal from the Circuit Court for Madison County No. C-06-390 (Div. III) Jerry
JUSTICE COURT # 2 GRAHAM COUNTY STATE OF ARIZONA P.O. BOX 1159, 136 WEST CENTER STREET, PIMA AZ 85543 PHONE (928) 485-2771 FAX (928) 485-9961 SMALL CLAIMS INSTRUCTIONS FOR FILING ***EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1,
================================================================= This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the New York Reports. -----------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19. Small Claim Actions in District Court. 7A-210. Small claim action defined. For purposes of this Article a small claim action is a civil action wherein: (1) The amount in controversy, computed
Missouri Small Claims Court Handbook The Missouri Bar Young Lawyers' Section TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION TO THE SMALL CLAIMS COURT...1 Page II. THINGS TO CONSIDER BEFORE BRINGING A CLAIM...1 A. WHO
RULE 7 PROBATE CASES RULE 7.10 Probate Courts/Session The County Courts at Law of Fort Bend County, Texas setting as Probate Courts shall be deemed in session at all times regarding probate cases as set
VIRGINIA ACTS OF ASSEMBLY -- 2015 SESSION CHAPTER 585 An Act to amend and reenact 38.2-2206 of the Code of Virginia and to amend the Code of Virginia by adding in Article 7 of Chapter 3 of Title 8.01 a
2015 IL App (1st) 141985-U No. 1-14-1985 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).
Case 06-00079-5-ATS Doc 26 Filed 08/24/06 Entered 08/24/06 13:28:19 Page 1 of 6 SO ORDERED. SIGNED this 24 day of August, 2006. A. Thomas Small United States Bankruptcy Judge UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2004-CA-01391-COA PEGGY HUDSON FISHER APPELLANT v. WILLIAM DEER, GANNETT MS CORP. AND GANNETT RIVER STATES PUBLISHING CORP. D/B/A THE HATTIESBURG
Chapter 1A. Rules of Civil Procedure. 1A-1. Rules of Civil Procedure. The Rules of Civil Procedure are as follows: Article 1. Scope of Rules-One Form of Action. Rule 1. Scope of rules. These rules shall
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS MICHAEL T. DOE and PATSY R. DOE, Plaintiffs-Appellees, UNPUBLISHED November 18, 2008 v No. 278763 Washtenaw Circuit Court JOHN HENKE, MD, and ANN ARBOR LC No. 02-000141-NH
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 LUZ RIVERA AND ABRIANNA RIVERA Appellant IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. RONALD MANZI Appellee No. 948 EDA 2015 Appeal from the Order
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY NICOLE B. VERRASTRO, as Surviving ) Daughter of Bridget E. Verrastro, and ) CHRISTOPHER GIERY as the Executor of the ) Estate
FOR PUBLICATION ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT: DAVID L. TAYLOR THOMAS R. HALEY III Jennings Taylor Wheeler & Haley P.C. Carmel, Indiana ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEES: DOUGLAS D. SMALL Foley & Small South Bend, Indiana
An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3)
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT MEMPHIS February 24, 2010 Session STEPHANIE JONES and HOWARD JONES v. RENGA I. VASU, M.D., THE NEUROLOGY CLINIC, and METHODIST LEBONHEUR HOSPITAL Appeal from the
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON SHARON SUMERA, NO. 66944-3-I Respondent, DIVISION ONE v. GREGORY BEASLEY and JANE DOE UNPUBLISHED OPINION BEASLEY, husband and wife and the marital community
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Atlantic and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the Court of any formal errors so that corrections
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT THE HARTFORD INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. Case No. 2D08-1307
[Cite as Mackey v. Luskin, 2007-Ohio-5844.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 88874 MAURICE L. MACKEY, SR. PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT vs. JOHN
Article 31. Tort Claims against State Departments and Agencies. 143-291. Industrial Commission constituted a court to hear and determine claims; damages; liability insurance in lieu of obligation under
NO. COA08-1309 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 8 December 2009 PATRICIA HEFLIN, Widow; CHRISTOPHER HEFLIN and GREGORY HEFLIN, by Their Guardian Ad Litem, N. VICTOR FARAH; ANDREW HEFLIN, by his Guardian
2013 IL App (1st) 120546-U Third Division March 13, 2013 No. 1-12-0546 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances
Present: Kinser, C.J., Lemons, Goodwyn, Millette, Mims, and Powell, JJ., and Lacy, S.J. ROBERT BARTEE, ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF TONIA BEGLEY, DECEASED v. Record No. 131283 OPINION BY SENIOR JUSTICE
CHAPTER 310 THE LAW REFORM (FATAL ACCIDENTS AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) ACT [PRINCIPAL LEGISLATION] ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS Section Title 1. Short title and application. 2. Interpretation. PART I PRELIMINARY
Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral
[Cite as Finkovich v. State Auto Ins. Cos., 2004-Ohio-1123.] COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 83125 JOYCE L. FINKOVICH, Plaintiff-appellant vs. STATE AUTO INSURANCE COMPANIES,
CHARLIE HONEYCUTT v. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2010-CT-01470-SCT TOMMY COLEMAN, ATLANTA CASUALTY COMPANIES, ATLANTA CASUALTY COMPANY AND AMERICAN PREMIER INSURANCE COMPANY ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI
RENDERED: DECEMBER 20, 2002; 10:00 a.m. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED C ommonwealth Of K entucky Court Of A ppeals NO. 2001-CA-002498-MR ALICE STANIFORD APPELLANT APPEAL FROM JOHNSON CIRCUIT COURT v. HONORABLE DANIEL
CASENOTE JAMES GRAFTON RANDALL, ESQ. LAWATYOURFINGERTIPS FAILURE OF DEFENDANT TO INCLUDE PROPER CODE SECTION IN ANSWER AS TO STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN A CAR ACCIDENT CLAIM WAIVES THE BAR OF THE STATUTE