NC General Statutes
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-85 (2026)
Affidavits on hearing for removal; when removal ordered
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
NCLEGncleg.gov (official)
JustiaChapter 1
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
No action, civil or criminal, shall be removed, unless the affidavit sets forth particularly and in detail the ground of the application. It is competent for the other side to controvert the allegations of fact in the application, and to offer counter affidavits to that end. The judge shall order the removal of the action, if he is satisfied after thorough examination of the evidence as aforesaid that the ends of justice demand it. (1879, c. 45; Code, s. 197; 1899, c. 104, s. 2; Rev., s. 427; C.S., s. 472.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6
cases, 1962–1979 · leading case: Swift & Co. v. Dan-Cleve Corp., 216 S.E.2d 464 (N.C. Ct. App. 1975).
Swift & Co. v. Dan-Cleve Corp., 216 S.E.2d 464 (N.C. Ct. App. 1975). “2d 647 (1972), contends that defendants have filed no verified motion or affidavits pursuant to G.S. 1-85 and have failed to carry the burden of proving facts alleged in their motion to remove.”
Godley Const. Co., Inc. v. McDaniel, 253 S.E.2d 359 (N.C. Ct. App. 1979). “It may well be that the prevailing rules applying to motions for change of venue, as previously set forth herein, are not the best which could be devised.”
Everett v. Town of Robersonville, 174 S.E.2d 116 (N.C. Ct. App. 1970). “Appellant’s additional contention that Judge Martin’s order must be reversed because not based upon affidavits as referred to in G.S. 1-85 is also without merit. Ordinarily the power of the trial judge to remove an action in order to assure a fair and impartial trial is invoked…”
State v. Penley, 170 S.E.2d 632 (N.C. Ct. App. 1969). “On the following day the attorneys for defendant filed their written motions for change of venue, or for a special venire, supporting the same by affidavits of the defendant and of three citizens of Burke County and by copies of newspaper articles which had appeared in *462 the…”
Patrick v. Hurdle, 169 S.E.2d 239 (N.C. Ct. App. 1969). “G.S. 1-85; See, Gilliken v. Norcom, supra; Emery v.”
State v. Moore, 258 N.C. 300 (N.C. 1962). “1-84), 197 (now G.S. 1-85.) Section 196 provides that, in all civil 'and criminal actions upon affidavits in behalf of either party that justice cannot be obtained in the county in which the action is pending, 'the judge shall be authorized to order a copy of the record of said…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.