Vick v. Davis

2 Citing cases

  1. Kornegay v. Aspen Asset Group

    693 S.E.2d 723 (N.C. Ct. App. 2010)   Cited 25 times
    Finding insufficient written notice of forfeiture where the employer's memo did not specify conditions for loss or forfeiture, but instead contained a vague statement that there would be “ bonuses ... [u]ntil [the employer] sees fit & confident [it is] making money”

             " ‘ The choice of sanctions under Rule 37 lies within the court's discretion and will not be overturned on appeal absent a showing of abuse of that discretion.’ " Atl. Veneer Corp. v. Robbins, 133 N.C.App. 594, 598, 516 S.E.2d 169, 172 (1999) (quoting Vick v. Davis, 77 N.C.App. 359, 361, 335 S.E.2d 197, 199 (1985), aff'd per curiam, 317 N.C. 328, 345 S.E.2d 217 (1986)). This Court will reverse a trial court's choice of sanctions only if the decision is " ‘ manifestly unsupported by reason.’ "

  2. Clark v. Alan Vester Auto Group, Inc.

    2009 NCBC 18 (N.C. Business 2009)   1 Legal Analyses

    {84} "The choice of sanctions under Rule 37 lies within the court's discretion and will not be overturned on appeal absent a showing of abuse of that discretion." Vick v. Davis, 77 N.C. App. 359, 361 (1985), aff'd, 317 N.C. 328 (1986) (quoting Routh v. Weaver, 67 N.C. App. 426, 429 (1984)). This court has broad discretion to "make such orders in regard to the failure as are just," including prohibiting the introduction of evidence, striking pleadings or imposing judgment.