Legal Opinion

Holland v. Southern Public Utilities Co.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided June 26, 1935PublishedCited by 52 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSchbNCK, J.

The record discloses that the defendants, in apt time and in due form, requested the court to charge the jury as follows: “If you find that the $500.00 paid the plaintiff by the Southeastern Express Company was full and adequate compensation for his injuries, then, no matter what your answer may be to the other issues, the plaintiff would not be entitled to recover any further damages in this action, and you will answer the fourth issue Nothing.’ In other words, if the plaintiff has already been fully and adequately compensated for any injury which he may have sustained at the time of this…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Lovejoy v. MurraySupreme Court of the United States · 1866
  2. Ellis v. EssonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1880
  3. Bloss v. PlymaleWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1869
  4. Musolf v. Duluth Edison Electric Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1909
  5. Chamberlin v. MurphySupreme Court of Vermont · 1868

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by52 opinions

  1. Brown v. FloweSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1998
  2. United States v. BrooksCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1949
  3. Wirth v. BraceySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1963
  4. Snyder v. Kenan Oil Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1952
  5. McWhirter v. Otis Elevator Co.District Court, W.D. South Carolina · 1941

47 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API