Legal Opinion

Farmer v. Chaney

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided April 14, 1977No. 66PublishedCited by 25 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

HUSKINS, Justice.

Defendants moved for a directed verdict at the close of plaintiff’s evidence. The motion was allowed, and plaintiff’s sole assignment of error is addressed to the propriety of that ruling.

On motion by a defendant for a directed verdict at close of plaintiff’s evidence in a jury case, as here, the evidence must be taken as true and considered in the light most favorable to plaintiff. When so considered, the motion should be allowed if, as a matter of law, the evidence is insufficient to justify a verdict for the plaintiff. G.S. 1A-1, Rule 50(a), Rules of Civil Procedure;…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Kelly v. International Harvester CompanySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1971
  2. Investment Properties of Asheville, Inc. v. AllenSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1972
  3. Investment Properties of Asheville, Inc. v. AllenSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1973
  4. Adler v. Lumber Mutual Fire Insurance CompanySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1971
  5. Hardee v. Charles Worth YorkSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1964

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

3Cited by25 opinions

  1. Bryant v. Nationwide Mutual Fire InsuranceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1985
  2. Penley v. PenleySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1985
  3. Boyd v. DrumCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1998
  4. Siders v. GibbsCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1978
  5. Ridenhour v. International Business MacHines Corp.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1999

20 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