Legal Opinion

Smith v. Price

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided February 18, 1986No. 332PA85PublishedCited by 59 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

BILLINGS, Justice.

I. Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict

According to the defendant, the plaintiffs motion for JNOV was not properly before the trial judge because when the plaintiff made a motion for a directed verdict at the close of all of the evidence (a prerequisite for JNOV), the plaintiff did not state the specific grounds therefore, as required by N.C.G.S. § 1A-1, Rule 50(a). When making the motion, the plaintiffs attorney said, “Your Honor, for the record purposes only, we’d also make a motion for a directed verdict with respect to the paternity issue but do not feel we need to argue…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Parker v. GladdenSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
  2. Worthington v. BynumSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1982
  3. Cutts v. CaseySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1971
  4. North Carolina National Bank v. BurnetteSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1979
  5. Summey v. CauthenSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1973

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

3Cited by59 opinions

  1. Compton v. KirbyCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2003
  2. Martishius v. Carolco Studios, Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 2002
  3. Brown v. Burlington Industries, Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1989
  4. Taylor v. WalkerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1987
  5. Investors Title Insurance v. HerzigSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1992

54 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