Civil Practice – Statute of Limitations – Federal Question Jurisdiction – State Court Action – Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice – Savings Provision – Inapplicable

Civil Practice – Statute of Limitations – Federal Question Jurisdiction – State Court Action – Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice – Savings Provision – Inapplicable (access required)

United States ex rel. Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. v. DTC Engineers & Constructors, LLC Since the plaintiff-supplier’s claim against the defendant-contractor is under the Miller Act – a federal statute with its own statute of limitations – plaintiff’s voluntary dismissal of its state court action pursuant to N.C. R. Civ. P. 41(a) did not give plaintiff an extra year to file suit in federal court.

Login required


You have clicked on a link to information that is exclusive to NC Lawyers Weekly subscribers.

	Email Address: Password:	Already a paid subscriber but not registered for online access yet? For instructions on how to get premium web access, click here. Forgot Password?

Interested in Subscribing?

Start by choosing how you'd like your news delivered.

- Print and Digital -

- Digital Only -

POST A COMMENT

Comments are closed.

Most Important Opinions

Environmental – Sedimentation Pollution Control Act – Private Action – Violation Required – Civil Practice – Standing – Administrative (access required)

Applewood Properties, LLC v. New South Properties, LLC Because the county Natural Resources Department never found the defendant-contractor to be in violation of any law, rule, order or erosion and sedimentation and control plan, plaintiff did not have standing to bring a civil action under the Sedimentation Pollution Control Act to seek redress for its injuries.

Tort/Negligence – Malicious Prosecution – Initiation – Restatement Standard — Giving Information to Police (access required)

North Carolina Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co. v. Cully’s Motorcross Park, Inc. Even though defendant Volpe would probably never have been charged with obtaining property by false pretenses if the plaintiff-insurance company’s investigator had not told a police sergeant the results of his investigation, we reject this “but for” standard as the method for proving the initiation element of malicious prosecution.

Tort/Negligence – Personal Injury – Shooting – 52-Year-Old Shooter – Parents’ Gun (access required)

Bridges v. Parrish We reject plaintiff’s claim that defendants are liable for failing to secure their gun, thereby allowing their 52-year-old son to gain access to the gun and shoot plaintiff with it.