Legal Opinion

Watkins v. Continental Can Co.

District Court, M.D. North Carolina

Decided December 28, 1963No. C-15-WS-63PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

HAYES, District Judge.

At the close of plaintiff’s evidence defendant moved for a directed verdict in its favor because the evidence failed to establish any actionable negligence against the defendant, and on the ground that plaintiff’s evidence affirmatively showed that he was guilty of contributory negligence proximately causing his injury. Ruling on the motion was reserved until the close of the evidence under Section (b) of Rule 50. The motion was renewed at the close of all of the evidence and again the court reserved its ruling, permitting the jury to have the case. It returned a verdict…

2Cases cited33 opinions

  1. Montgomery Ward & Co. v. DuncanSupreme Court of the United States · 1940
  2. Johnson v. New York, New Haven & Hartford RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1952
  3. Harrison v. North Carolina RailroadSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1927
  4. Godwin v. Atlantic Coast Line RailroadSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1941
  5. United States v. DiehlCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1932

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

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. United States v. NarcisoDistrict Court, E.D. Michigan · 1977
  2. Scagnelli v. WhitingDistrict Court, M.D. North Carolina · 1982

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

Powered by the Exa API