Burgess v. CG TATE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY
Supreme Court of North Carolina
1Opinion of the Court
Pek Cuei&m.
We have examined the record and considered each of plaintiff’s assignments of error. We find no error which, in our opinion, affected the verdict. “ ‘Verdicts and judgments are not to be set aside for harmless error or for mere error and no more . . .”’ Collins v. Lamb, 215 N.C. 719, 720, 2 S.E. 2d 863, 864. The burden is on appellant to show not only that there was error in the trial but also that there is a reasonable probability that “the result was materially affected thereby to his hurt.”' Garland v. Penegar, 235 N.C. 517, 519, 70 S.E. 2d 486, 488. We find no reason to disturb…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Collins v. . LambSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1939
- Garland v. PenegarSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1952
3Cited by13 opinions
- Responsible Citizens in Opposition to the Flood Plain Ordinance v. City of AshevilleSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1983
- State v. AlexanderSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1971
- Beck v. Carolina Power and Light Co.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1982
- Faucette v. 6303 Carmel Road, LLCCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2015
- Brown v. ScismCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1981
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.