1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. S.E.2d
  4. 416 S.E.2d
  5. 416 S.E.2d 207 (1992)
 

LUSK v. CRAWFORD PAINT CO.

No. 9121SC542.

416 S.E.2d 207 (1992)

106 N.C. App. 292

Conrad Ray LUSK v. CRAWFORD PAINT COMPANY; Ruscon Corporation; George W. Kane, Incorporated; Carolina Steel Corporation.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

May 19, 1992.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

The Law Office of Herman L. Stephens, by Herman L. Stephens, Winston-Salem, for plaintiff-appellant.

Teague and Rotenstreich, by Stephen G. Teague, Greensboro, for defendant-appellee Crawford Paint Co.

Smith Helms Mullis & Moore, by Richmond G. Bernhardt, Jr., Greensboro, for defendant-appellee Ruscon Corp.

Petree Stockton & Robinson, by Robert J. Lawing and Jane C. Jackson, Winston-Salem, for defendant-appellee George W. Kane, Inc.

Hutchins, Tyndall, Doughton & Moore, by H. Lee Davis, Jr., Winston-Salem, for defendant-appellee Carolina Steel Corp.

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...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases