Legal Opinion

Mazza v. Huffaker

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided March 15, 1983No. 8115SC1180PublishedCited by 34 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

HEDRICK, Judge.

Defendant’s first assignment of error brought forth in his brief is that “[t]he court erred in denying defendants’ motions for directed verdict and judgment notwithstanding [the] verdict on the malpractice claim for reason that no act of professional malpractice was shown by plaintiffs evidence.”

In passing upon a defendant’s motion for directed verdict, the plaintiff’s “evidence must be taken as true, . . . and [the motion] may be granted only if, as a matter of law, the evidence is insufficient to justify a verdict for the plaintiffs.” Dickinson v. Pake, 284 N.C. 576, 583, 201…

2Cases cited20 opinions

  1. Hardy v. TolerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1975
  2. Dickinson v. PakeSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1974
  3. Hinson v. DawsonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1956
  4. Hunt v. Montgomery Ward and Co., Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1980
  5. Shugar v. GuillSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1981

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

3Cited by34 opinions

  1. Marlene F. v. Affiliated Psychiatric Medical Clinic, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1989
  2. Figueiredo-Torres v. NickelCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1991
  3. Watts v. Cumberland County Hospital System, Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1985
  4. Curtis v. MRI IMAGING SERVICES IIOregon Supreme Court · 1998
  5. Thierfelder v. WolfertSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2012

29 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