Jones v. Yates Motor Company

North Carolina Industrial Commission

Jones v. Yates Motor Company

CourtNorth Carolina Industrial Commission

DecidedOctober 23, 1996

DocketI.C. No. 150437

StatusPublished

This text of Jones v. Yates Motor Company (Jones v. Yates Motor Company) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering North Carolina Industrial Commission primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Jones v. Yates Motor Company, (N.C. Super. Ct. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Pursuant to the Court of Appeals opinion reversing and remanding this case to determine if plaintiff is entitled relief pursuant to Rule 60(b) from the 28 January 1994 judgment, the undersigned have reviewed the prior procedural history of this matter and the record in this matter. Although, as the Court of Appeals held, plaintiff filed his motion for relief from judgment within a reasonable time, he has not shown good grounds to set aside the judgment filed 28 January 1994, in that, plaintiff has not shown excusable neglect, mistake, newly discovered evidence, or other grounds which would be grounds for relief from operation of the judgment under Rule 60(b).

Therefore, it is hereby Ordered that Commissioner Vance's Order filed 25 April 1996 is hereby stricken and the Opinion and Award of the Full Commission filed on 28 January 1994 is reinstated in full force and effect.

S/ ______________________________ DIANNE C. SELLERS COMMISSIONER

CONCURRING:

S/ ______________________________ J. RANDOLPH WARD COMMISSIONER

DISSENTING:

S/ ______________________________ COY M. VANCE COMMISSIONER

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Pursuant to the Court of Appeals opinion reversing and remanding this case to determine if plaintiff is entitled relief pursuant to Rule 60(b) from the 28 January 1994 judgment, the undersigned have reviewed the prior procedural history of this matter and the record in this matter. Although, as the Court of Appeals held, plaintiff filed his motion for relief from judgment within a reasonable time, he has not shown good grounds to set aside the judgment filed 28 January 1994, in that, plaintiff has not shown excusable neglect, mistake, newly discovered evidence, or other grounds which would be grounds for relief from operation of the judgment under Rule 60(b).