Legal Opinion

Woodruff v. Shuford

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided August 5, 1986No. 8625SC159PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

WHICHARD, Judge.

Defendant contends the court erred in failing to grant his motion for a directed verdict. We disagree.

*262In general,

[i]n considering any motion for directed verdict [under N.C. Gen. Stat. 1A-1, Rule 50], the trial court must view all the evidence that supports the non-movant’s claim as being true and that evidence must be considered in the light most favorable to the non-movant, giving to the non-movant the benefit of every reasonable inference that may legitimately be drawn from the evidence with contradictions, conflicts, and inconsistencies being resolved in the non-movant’s…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Dickinson v. PakeSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1974
  2. Bryant v. Nationwide Mutual Fire InsuranceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1985
  3. Nello L. Teer Company v. Dickerson, Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1962
  4. Paris v. MICHAEL KREITZ JR., PACourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1985
  5. Mahaffey v. SoderoCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1978

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

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. All Points Capital Corp. v. Laurel Hill Paper Co. (In Re Laurel Hill Paper Co.)United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. North Carolina · 2008
  2. Franklin Grading Co. v. ParhamCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1991

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API