Legal Opinion

Andrews v. Sprott

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided March 18, 1959No. 246PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHiggiNS, J.

The plaintiff, "by her -assignment of error No. 4, ehal- lenges the following portion of the court’s charge: “Now, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, if you find from the evidence and by its greater weight as I have defined that term to you, that the defendant operated his oar at a reckless rate of speed, that he operated his oar with defective brakes, that he failed to keep a proper lookout, and failed to keep his oar under control, and if you find that such negligence was the proximate cause of the collision and the resulting injury, then it would be your duty to answer the first issue yes.…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Aldridge Ex Rel. Aldridge v. HastySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1954
  2. State v. McCoySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1952
  3. Henderson v. HendersonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1954
  4. Ervin v. Cannon Mills Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1951
  5. Worley v. CHAMPION MOTOR COMPANYSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1957

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

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Dunlap v. LeeSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1962
  2. Carswell v. LackeySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1960
  3. White v. CothranSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1963
  4. Textile Motor Freight, Inc. v. DuBose Ex Rel. ConveySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1963
  5. Krider v. MartelloSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1960

7 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