Legal Opinion

Kolman v. . Silbert

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided January 31, 1941PublishedCited by 22 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBarnhill, J.

In automobile cases where the alleged negligence rests in the violation of one or more of the provisions of the law governing the operation of motor vehicles enacted, designed and intended to protect life, limb and property, it is mandatory that the judge in his charge shall state, in a plain and correct manner, the evidence in the case and declare and apply the pertinent provisions of the Motor Traffic Law. Bowen v. Schnibben, 184 N. C., 248, 114 S. E., 170; Williams v. Coach Co., 197 N. C., 12, 147 S. E., 435; Spencer v. Brown, 214 N. C., 114, 198 S. E., 630.

“Where a statute appertaining to…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Spencer v. . BrownSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1938
  2. Williams v. Eastern Carolina Coach Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1929
  3. Nichols v. Champion Fibre Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1925
  4. Bowen v. . SchnibbenSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1922
  5. Smith v. Safe Bus Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1939

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

3Cited by22 opinions

  1. Steelman v. . BenfieldSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1948
  2. Cox v. LeeSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1949
  3. Williams v. HendersonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1949
  4. Hoke v. Atlantic Greyhound Corp.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1946
  5. Primm v. KingSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1958

17 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