Legal Opinion

Rader v. Queen City Coach Co.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided October 31, 1945PublishedCited by 65 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBarnhill, J.

The defendants excepted to the judgment in the court below. This is the only exception appearing in the record. Defendants' only assignment of error is in the following language:

“The defendants assign as error the approval and affirmation of the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the North Carolina Industrial Commission as will appear by Judgment in the record.”

The exception to the judgment presents the single question, whether the facts found and admitted are sufficient to support the judgment. Query v. Insurance Co., 218 N. C., 386, 11 S. E. (2d), 139; Wilson v. Charlotte, 206 N.…

2Cases cited24 opinions

  1. Dixon v. . OsborneSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1931
  2. City of Hickory v. Catawba CountySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1934
  3. Wilson v. City of CharlotteSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1934
  4. Vestal v. Moseley Vending MacHine Exchange, Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1941
  5. In Re Will of BeardSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1932

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

3Cited by65 opinions

  1. Lee v. . Board of AdjustmentSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1946
  2. Greene v. SpiveySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1952
  3. Pratt v. Central Upholstery Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1960
  4. Putnam v. Triangle Publications, Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1957
  5. Town of Burnsville v. BooneSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1950

60 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