Legal Opinion

Heist v. Heist

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided May 6, 1980No. 7921SC896PublishedCited by 15 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MARTIN (Robert M.), Judge.

Defendant by her first assignment of error contends that the trial court erred in failing to grant her motion for a directed verdict at the close of plaintiff’s evidence. Defendant failed to state specific grounds for her motion for a directed verdict as required by Rule 50(a), N.C. Rules of Civ. Proc. Although the provision in Rule 50(a) that a motion for a directed verdict shall state the specific grounds therefore is mandatory, the courts need not inflexibly enforce the rule when the grounds for the motion are apparent to the court and the parties. Anderson v.…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Anderson Ex Rel. Anderson v. ButlerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1974
  2. Cottle v. . JohnsonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1920
  3. Sebastian v. KluttzCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1969
  4. Hoots v. CalawaySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1973
  5. Snellings v. RobertsCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1971

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

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. Nelson v. JacobsenUtah Supreme Court · 1983
  2. Fundermann v. MickelsonSupreme Court of Iowa · 1981
  3. Bailey v. FaulknerSupreme Court of Alabama · 2006
  4. Scott v. KikerCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1982
  5. Gray v. HooverCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1989

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