Legal Opinion

Whitley v. Redden

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided January 30, 1970No. 57PublishedCited by 17 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBranch, J.

Defendant contends that the trial judge erred in failing to submit an issue as to the amount defendant owed plaintiff, if anything. The often-used issue, “How much, if anything, is plaintiff entitled to recover,” is not sufficient when other issues of fact are raised. This is true because submission of the single issue may omit controverted facts upon which the right to recover is based. Yates v. Body Co., 258 N.C. 16, 128 S.E. 2d 11. However, it is not error for the trial court to fail to submit to the jury an issue as to the amount of indebtedness where it appears that the amount is…

2Cases cited21 opinions

  1. Bunn v. . ToddSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1890
  2. In Re HintonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1920
  3. McLeary v. . NormentSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1881
  4. In Re Will of ChismanSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1918
  5. In Re the Will of BrownSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1927

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

3Cited by17 opinions

  1. Hanahan v. SimpsonSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1997
  2. State v. RoseboroSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1970
  3. Hardee v. HardeeSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1983
  4. In Re the Foreclosure of a Deed of Trust Executed by CookeCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1978
  5. Pinner v. Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1983

12 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