Legal Opinion

Hoots v. Calaway

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided January 26, 1973No. 44PublishedCited by 20 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

BOBBITT, Chief Justice.

The sole question presented by this appeal is whether, as a matter of law, the evidence offered by plaintiffs, when considered in the light most favorable to them, was sufficient to be submitted to the jury. Kelly v. Harvester Co., 278 N.C. 153, 179 S.E. 2d 396 (1971); Cutts v. Casey, 278 N.C. 390, 180 S.E. 2d 297 (1971); Roberts v. Memorial Park, 281 N.C. 48, 187 S.E. 2d 721 (1972).

Plaintiffs’ action is based on legal principles stated by Justice (later Chief Justice) Barnhill in Queen v. Sisk, 238 N.C. 389, 391-92, 78 S.E. 2d 152, 155 (1953), as follows:

“When a sale…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Montgomery Ward & Co. v. DuncanSupreme Court of the United States · 1940
  2. Kelly v. International Harvester CompanySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1971
  3. Cutts v. CaseySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1971
  4. Roberts v. William N. & Kate B. Reynolds Mem. ParkSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1972
  5. Sherrill v. . HaganSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1885

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

3Cited by20 opinions

  1. Beal v. KH STEPHENSON SUPPLY CO., INC.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1978
  2. Smith v. Central Soya of Athens, Inc.District Court, E.D. North Carolina · 1985
  3. Capital Resources, LLC v. Chelda, Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 2012
  4. Graves v. WalstonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1981
  5. Heist v. HeistCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1980

15 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