Legal Opinion

Peed v. Peed

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided February 5, 1985No. 849SC140PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ARNOLD, Judge.

The plaintiff contends that the trial court erred by granting the defendant’s motion for a directed verdict on the issue of whether or not the plaintiff and defendant were partners. A directed verdict motion concerns whether evidence is sufficient to go to the jury. Rappaport v. Days Inn of America, Inc., 296 N.C. 382, 384, 250 S.E. 2d 245, 247 (1979). In passing on such a motion, the trial judge must consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-movant (in this case, the plaintiff), resolving all conflicts and giving to her the benefit of every inference…

2Cases cited22 opinions

  1. Summey v. CauthenSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1973
  2. Roberts v. William N. & Kate B. Reynolds Mem. ParkSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1972
  3. Rappaport v. Days Inn of America, Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1979
  4. Fulp v. FulpSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1965
  5. Bowen v. DardenSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1954

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

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Wilder v. HobsonCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1990
  2. Hines v. ArnoldCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1991
  3. Mosley & Mosley Builders, Inc. v. Landin Ltd.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1987
  4. Leftwich v. GainesCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1999
  5. Cap Care Group, Inc. v. McDonaldCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2002

6 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