Legal Opinion

Kirkman v. Baucom

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided June 28, 1957No. 597PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBobbitt, J.

Baucom’s administrator, the defendant-appellant in the Wolf and Fuller cases, insists that the court erred in refusing to allow his motions for judgments of involuntary nonsuit.

In considering this question, these well established rules apply: 1. Only the motions made at the close of all the evidence are to be considered. Murray v. Wyatt, 245 N.C. 123, 95 S.E. 2d 541. 2. The evidence, and all inferences that may be fairly drawn therefrom, must be considered in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs. Brafford v. Cook, 232 N.C. 699, 62 S.E. 2d 327. 3. Discrepancies and contradictions, even…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Bridges v. GrahamSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1957
  2. Murray v. WyattSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1956
  3. Price v. GraySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1957
  4. Brafford v. CookSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1950
  5. Keaton v. Blue Bird Taxi Co. of Asheville, Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1955

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

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Lane v. DorneySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1960
  2. Clark v. Red Bird Cab Co.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1994
  3. Dunning Ex Rel. Sowers v. Forsyth Warehouse Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1968
  4. Moore Ex Rel. Moore v. MooreSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1966
  5. Beauchamp v. ClarkSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1959

5 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