Blow v. Shaughnessy
Court of Appeals of North Carolina
1Opinion of the Court
JOHNSON, Judge.
Plaintiffs contend that the trial court erred in giving a supplemental jury instruction on the definition of “substantial assistance.” We find plaintiffs’ contention is without merit.
Plaintiffs object to the following language given by the Court:
Substantial assistance is defined as a large amount or quantity of assistance as distinguished from nominal or routine assistance. Assistance may be said to be substantial when it was a significant factor in bringing about the violation complained of, that is, the false reporting of unit values. In the present case, in order for you to…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Metge v. BaehlerCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1985
- Landy v. Federal Deposit InsuranceSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
- Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 95,351 Billie Jean Woodward v. Metro Bank of DallasCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1975
- Worthington v. BynumSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1982
- United States v. Michael Newman and Frank X. Gaca. Appeal of Frank X. GacaCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1974
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by44 opinions
- Broussard v. Meineke Discount Muffler Shops, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1998
- Chem-Age Industries, Inc. v. GloverSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2002
- Stetser v. Tap Pharmaceutical Products, Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 2004
- Future Group, II v. NationsbankSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1996
- Ehrenhaus v. BakerCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2011
39 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.