Bruegge v. Mastertemp, Inc.
Court of Appeals of North Carolina
1Opinion of the Court
JOHNSON, Judge.
The ultimate issue we must decide is whether plaintiffs’ evidence, when considered in the light most favorable to them, was sufficient for submission to the jury. See, e.g., Wallace v. Evans, 60 N.C. App. 145, 298 S.E. 2d 193 (1982). The purpose of a motion for directed verdict was stated in Wallace, supra, as follows:
Settled principles establish that the purpose of a G.S. 1A-1, Rule 50(a) motion for directed verdict is to test the legal sufficiency of the evidence to take the case to the jury and to support a verdict for plaintiffs; that in determining such a motion the…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Summey v. CauthenSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1973
- Fitzgerald v. RailroadSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1906
- Wallace Ex Rel. Magers v. EvansCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1982
- Ingold v. Carolina Power & Light CompanyCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1971
- Fowler-Barham Ford, Inc. v. Indiana Lumbermens Mutual InsuranceCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1980
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Felts v. Liberty Emergency Service, P.A.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1990
- Day v. BrantCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2012
- Day v. BrantCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2010
- Felts v. Liberty Emergency Service, P.A.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1990
- Hicks v. KMD Inv. SolutionsCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2021
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.