Legal Opinion

Barnard v. Rowland

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided March 2, 1999No. COA97-1411PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

JOHN, Judge.

Defendant and third-party plaintiff Bobby Rowland (Rowland) appeals the trial court’s denial of his motions pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 1A-1, Rule 50(b) (1990) for directed verdict and for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV). Rowland also contends the court erred by: (1) granting the directed verdict motion of plaintiffs Everette and Diane Barnard (the Barnards) on Rowland’s claim of tor-tious interference of contract; and (2) failing to instruct the jury properly on the doctrines of impossibility of performance and prevention, and contribution. For the reasons discussed…

2Cases cited33 opinions

  1. Smith v. Ford Motor Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1976
  2. Embree Construction Group, Inc. v. Rafcor, Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1992
  3. Peoples Security Life Insurance v. HooksSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1988
  4. Love v. PressleyCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1977
  5. Matthews v. ForrestSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1952

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

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. Compton v. KirbyCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2003
  2. Bloch v. Paul Revere Life InsuranceCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2001
  3. McCullough v. Branch Banking & Trust Co.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 2000
  4. Word v. Jones Ex Rel. MooreSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1999
  5. Adams v. WoodsCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2005

8 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