Legal Opinion

Rouse v. Jones

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided May 3, 1961No. 312PublishedCited by 15 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMooee, J.

Defendants Jones and defendants Shivar severally assign as error the refusal of the court to allow their respective motions for nonsuit.

With respect to negligence and proximate cause the evidence is sharply conflicting. On the motions to nonsuit, plaintiff is entitled to have the evidence considered in the light most favorable to him. King v. Powell, 252 N.C. 506, 509, 114 S.E. 2d 265. When so considered, plaintiff’s version of the occurrence is as follows:

About ten minutes before the accident Jones and Shivar met at the river bridge and talked a minute or two. Jones turned his car around and…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Butner v. SpeaseSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1940
  2. Butner v. . SpeaseSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1940
  3. Conley Ex Rel. Conley v. Pearce-Young-Angel Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1944
  4. Tyson v. . FordSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1948
  5. Riddle v. ArtisSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1956

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

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. Hairston v. Alexander Tank & Equipment Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1984
  2. Acosta v. ByrumCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2006
  3. Long v. HarrisCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2000
  4. Olympic Products Co. v. Roof Systems, Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1988
  5. Young v. Baltimore and Ohio Railroad CompanySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1966

10 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