Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

212 N.C. 762

194 S.E 461

Tickle v. . Hobgood

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided January 5, 1938

Supreme Court of North Carolina · decided 1938-01-05

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1938-01-05

How this case has been cited

Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently May 1997

9 state decisions

401938194019501960197019801990decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Stagy, C. J.

¶1 An application for a bill of particulars under C. S., 534, or a motion to require a pleading to be made more definite and certain under 537, is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court, and his ruling thereon, made in the exercise of such discretion, is not reviewable on appeal, except perhaps in extreme cases. Temple v. Tel. Co., 205 N. C., 441, 171 S. E., 630; S. v. Bryant, 111 N. C., 693, 16 S. E., 326. Where however, as here, the court denies the motion as a matter of law, without the exercise of discretion, the defendant is entitled to have the application reconsidered and passed upon as a discretionary matter. Townsend v. Williams, 117 N. C., 330, 23 S. E., 461; S. v. Fuller, 114 N. C., 885, 19 S. E., 797. For procedure in criminal cases see C. S., 4613; S. v. Wadford, 194 N. C., 336, 139 S. E., 608.

¶2 Error.

Babnhill, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this-case.
/212/nc/762 · .json · Public domain