Vinson v. . O'Berry, 183 S.E. 424 (N.C. 1936). · Go Syfert
Search
Vinson v. . O'Berry, 183 S.E. 424 (N.C. 1936). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases · …bites in two places at the same time. at p. 290 ≈ altered
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, 1990–2025 · 2 courts · …this is not only taking two bites at the cherry, but biting in two places at the same time. at p. 290 ✓
6 citation events (4 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Vette v. Santos (ncctapp, 2025-09-17)
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Vette v. Santos
N.C. Ct. App. · 2025 · confidence medium
Plaintiff’s contention has been rejected by our Supreme Court as early as 1936 when it held that a plaintiff cannot bring a second action involving the same subject matter against a defendant where an action is already pending between the parties, even if the damages sought are distinct, reasoning: “this is not only taking two bites at the cherry, but biting in two places at the same time.” Vinson v. O’Berry, 209 N.C. 289, 290 (1936).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Town of Apex v. Rubin
N.C. · 2025 · confidence medium
Holding otherwise would allow parties not only a second bite at the apple but the ability to take “bit[es] in two places at the same time.” Vinson v. O’Berry, 209 N.C. 289, 290 (1936).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Town of Apex v. Rubin
N.C. · 2025 · confidence medium
Holding otherwise would allow parties not only a second bite at the apple but the ability to take “bit[es] in two places at the same time.” Vinson v. O’Berry, 209 N.C. 289, 290 (1936).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Clark v. Craven Regional Medical Authority
N.C. · 1990 · confidence medium
In examining this question as long ago as 1936 in a case where the plaintiff sought damages in the first suit and injunctive relief in a second suit against the same defendant on the same grounds, this Court concluded “this is not only taking two bites at the cherry, but biting in two places at the same time.” Vinson v. O’Berry, 209 N.C. 289, 290 , 183 S.E. 424, 424-25 (1936).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
J. A. VINSON
v.
ANNIE L. O’BERRY Et Al.
Supreme Court of North Carolina.
Jan 22, 1936.
183 S.E. 424
Kermeth O. Boyall and J. Faison Thomson for plaintiff. , Attorney-General Seawell and Assistant Attorneys-General Ailcen and Bruton for the State. , J. S. Massenburg and Langston, Allen & Taylor for other defendants.
Stacy, Devin.
Cited by 4 opinions  |  Published
Stacy, C. J.

The allegations of the complaint present no serious question of law, and the facts stated therein are not sufficient to invoke the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Cohoon v. State, 201 N. C., 312, 160 S. E., 183; Warren v. State, 199 N. C., 211, 153 S. E., 864; Lacy v. State, 195 N. C., 284, 141 S. E., 886.

Moreover, it appears on the face of the complaint that another action between the same parties, involving the same subject matter, is now pending on appeal from Wayne Superior Court, Vinson v. O’Berry, ante, 287, albeit the plaintiff says in his brief he is seeking injunctive relief there and damages here. Still this is not only taking two bites at the cherry, but biting in two places at the same time.

The proceeding must be dismissed for want of jurisdictional showing.

Proceeding dismissed.

Devin, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.