time fixed hearing (North Carolina) · Go Syfert
← North Carolina issues

time fixed hearing in North Carolina

9 North Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1917–2017 0 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by North Carolina courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (3)

CaseFollowedCited
Ketner v. Rouzergreen
ncctapp · 1971 · cited in 3 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 1971–2015
2 sentences

2015Accordingly, we held, "Since the procedure prescribed by Rule 56 was not followed, the judgment appealed from is erroneous." Id. at 401 , 183 S.E.2d at 304 (citing Ketner v. Rouzer, 11 N.C.App. 483 , 182 S.E.2d 21 (1971) ; Lane v. Faust, 9 N.C.App. 427 , 176 S.E.2d 381 (1970) ).

2015Accordingly, we held, "Since the procedure prescribed by Rule 56 was not followed, the judgment appealed from is erroneous." Id. at 401 , 183 S.E.2d at 304 (citing Ketner v. Rouzer, 11 N.C.App. 483 , 182 S.E.2d 21 (1971) ; Lane v. Faust, 9 N.C.App. 427 , 176 S.E.2d 381 (1970) ).

23
Golding v. Taylorgreen
ncctapp · 1973 · cited in 2 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2003–2017
2 sentences

2017See Golding v. Taylor , 19 N.C.App. 245 , 248, 198 S.E.2d 478 , 480 (1973) ("[I]n the absence of an extension of time, failure to object to interrogatories *730 within the time fixed by the rule is a waiver of any objection ..."); N.C.

2017See Golding v. Taylor , 19 N.C.App. 245 , 248, 198 S.E.2d 478 , 480 (1973) ("[I]n the absence of an extension of time, failure to object to interrogatories *730 within the time fixed by the rule is a waiver of any objection ..."); N.C.

12
Zimmerman's Department Store, Inc. v. Shipper's Freight Lines, Inc.green
ncctapp · 1984 · cited in 1 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 1991–1991
2 sentences

1991In relevant part, N.C.G.S. § 1A-1, Rule 56(c) provides a motion for summary judgment “shall be served at least 10 days before the time fixed for the hearing.” “Failure to comply with this mandatory 10 day notice requirement will ordinarily result in reversal of summary judgment obtained by the party violating the rule.” Zimmerman’s Dep’t Store v. Shipper’s Freight Lines, 67 N.C.

1991App. 556, 557-58 , 313 S.E.2d 252, 253 (1984) (emphasis added).

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in North Carolina. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (8)

CaseCitedYears
Craig v. People ex rel. Welsh neutral
ill · 1900
2 sentences

1917Yolo Co. Reclamation District v. Burger , 122 Cal. 442 ; Craig v. People , 188 Ill., 416 ; McMullen v. State , 105 Ind. 334 .

1917Yolo Co. Reclamation District v. Burger, 122 Cal., 442 ; Craig v. People, 188 Ill., 416 ; McMullen v. State, 105 Ind., 334 .

21917–1917
Reclamation District No. 537 of Yolo County v. Burger green
cal · 1898
2 sentences

1917Yolo Co. Reclamation District v. Burger , 122 Cal. 442 ; Craig v. People , 188 Ill., 416 ; McMullen v. State , 105 Ind. 334 .

1917Yolo Co. Reclamation District v. Burger, 122 Cal., 442 ; Craig v. People, 188 Ill., 416 ; McMullen v. State, 105 Ind., 334 .

21917–1917
McMullen v. State ex rel. Kendle neutral
ind · 1886
2 sentences

1917Yolo Co. Reclamation District v. Burger , 122 Cal. 442 ; Craig v. People , 188 Ill., 416 ; McMullen v. State , 105 Ind. 334 .

1917Yolo Co. Reclamation District v. Burger, 122 Cal., 442 ; Craig v. People, 188 Ill., 416 ; McMullen v. State, 105 Ind., 334 .

21917–1917
Lane v. Faust neutral
ncctapp · 1970
2 sentences

2015Accordingly, we held, "Since the procedure prescribed by Rule 56 was not followed, the judgment appealed from is erroneous." Id. at 401 , 183 S.E.2d at 304 (citing Ketner v. Rouzer, 11 N.C.App. 483 , 182 S.E.2d 21 (1971) ; Lane v. Faust, 9 N.C.App. 427 , 176 S.E.2d 381 (1970) ).

2015Accordingly, we held, "Since the procedure prescribed by Rule 56 was not followed, the judgment appealed from is erroneous." Id. at 401 , 183 S.E.2d at 304 (citing Ketner v. Rouzer, 11 N.C.App. 483 , 182 S.E.2d 21 (1971) ; Lane v. Faust, 9 N.C.App. 427 , 176 S.E.2d 381 (1970) ).

12015–2015
Britt v. Allen neutral
ncctapp · 1971
2 sentences

2015Not only did defendants fail to move for summary judgment but plaintiffs were not given at least 10 days' notice before the time fixed for the hearing as required by Rule 56(c)." Id. at 400-01 , 183 S.E.2d at 304 .

2015Not only did defendants fail to move for summary judgment but plaintiffs were not given at least 10 days' notice before the time fixed for the hearing as required by Rule 56(c)." Id. at 400-01 , 183 S.E.2d at 304 .

12015–2015
Moseley v. Branch Banking & Trust Co. neutral
nc · 1973
2 sentences

2003App. 245 , 198 S.E.2d 478 , cert. denied, 284 N.C. 121 , 199 S.E.2d 659 (1973), this Court held that the failure to make a timely objection to interrogatories did not operate as a waiver of this privilege. “[While we agree that ordinarily, in the absence of an extension of time, failure to object to interrogatories within the time fixed by the rule is a waiver of any objection, we hold that this principle must yield to the privilege against self-incrimination guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment to the Federal Constitution.” Id. at 248, 198 S.E.2d 480 .

2003App. 245 , 198 S.E.2d 478 , cert. denied, 284 N.C. 121 , 199 S.E.2d 659 (1973), this Court held that the failure to make a timely objection to interrogatories did not operate as a waiver of this privilege. “[While we agree that ordinarily, in the absence of an extension of time, failure to object to interrogatories within the time fixed by the rule is a waiver of any objection, we hold that this principle must yield to the privilege against self-incrimination guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment to the Federal Constitution.” Id. at 248, 198 S.E.2d 480 .

12003–2003
State v. Norman green
ncctapp · 1973
1 sentence

2003App. 245 , 198 S.E.2d 478 , cert. denied, 284 N.C. 121 , 199 S.E.2d 659 (1973), this Court held that the failure to make a timely objection to interrogatories did not operate as a waiver of this privilege. “[While we agree that ordinarily, in the absence of an extension of time, failure to object to interrogatories within the time fixed by the rule is a waiver of any objection, we hold that this principle must yield to the privilege against self-incrimination guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment to the Federal Constitution.” Id. at 248, 198 S.E.2d 480 .

12003–2003
Raintree Corp. v. Rowe green
ncctapp · 1978
1 sentence

1988Raintree Corp. v. Rowe, 38 N.C.

11988–1988

Statutes the citing opinions construe

NC § N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1 (6)

Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.

Where else courts name it

OH 37 (1984–2018) GA 30 (1917–2025) AL 15 (1960–2024) FL 14 (1953–2017) CA 11 (1910–1961) MS 11 (1992–2026) NC 9 (1917–2017) LA 8 (1934–2012) IL 8 (1906–1989) IN 6 (1911–1997) WI 5 (1998–2025) PA 5 (1897–1935) KY 4 (1978–2020) IA 4 (1960–1979) SC 4 (2006–2024) RI 4 (1978–2000) SD 4 (1910–2008) MT 3 (1918–1975) ID 3 (1917–2015) DC 3 (1948–2010) CT 3 (1935–1968) VA 3 (1876–1876) NE 3 (1907–2009) WY 3 (1902–1986) NV 3 (1940–1996) TN 3 (1977–2025) AR 3 (1920–1989) WA 2 (1905–1932) MA 2 (1991–1994) HI 2 (2005–2008) MD 2 (1923–2018) ND 2 (1977–1981) MN 2 (1900–1992) MO 2 (1991–1994)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check