Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

35 N.C. App. 21

Norris ex rel. Norris v. West

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided January 3, 1978

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · decided 1978-01-03

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently October 1985

4 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“the failure to act was the result of excusable neglect.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 60 N.C. App. 85 - Byrd v. Mortenson

Relies on 21 N.C. App. 585 - Johnson v. Hooks

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1978-01-03

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

PARKER, Judge.

¶1Plaintiff contends that the court erred in granting defendant’s motion for an extension of time in which to file an answer to the complaint. G.S. 1A-1, Rule 6(b) gives the trial court the discretionary authority to enlarge the time period for filing an answer. If, as in this case, the request for such an enlargement is made after the expiration of the time to file, the court may enlarge the time period for filing if the failure to file was the result of excusable neglect. Johnson v. Hooks, 21 N.C. App. 585, 205 S.E. 2d 796 (1974). The trial court’s finding of excusable neglect is supported by the record, and there has been no showing that the court abused its discretion in allowing defendant to file his answer. Therefore, the order of the trial court is

¶2Affirmed.

Judges Britt and Vaughn concur.
/35/ncapp/21 · .json · Public domain