Legal Opinion

Blow v. Shaughnessy

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided February 2, 1988No. 8710SC153PublishedCited by 44 opinions

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

  1. Metge v. BaehlerCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1985
  2. Landy v. Federal Deposit InsuranceSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
  3. Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 95,351 Billie Jean Woodward v. Metro Bank of DallasCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1975
  4. Worthington v. BynumSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1982
  5. 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

  1. Broussard v. Meineke Discount Muffler Shops, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1998
  2. Chem-Age Industries, Inc. v. GloverSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2002
  3. Stetser v. Tap Pharmaceutical Products, Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 2004
  4. Future Group, II v. NationsbankSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1996
  5. Ehrenhaus v. BakerCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2011

39 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