Legal Opinion

Apel v. Queen City Coach Company

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided April 13, 1966No. 279PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHiggins, J.

The defendants made timely motions to nonsuit and to set aside the verdict as being contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. These motions involved the same legal questions. Martin v. Underhill, 265 N.C. 669, 144 S.E. 2d 872. They were properly denied. In fact, neither in their brief nor on the oral argument do the defendants seriously challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to go to the jury on issues of negligence and some injury. However, they do seriously contend the plaintiff’s evidence with respect to the consequential damages charged in paragraph 16 of the complaint was…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Lockwood v. McCaskillSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1964
  2. Perfecting Service Co. v. Product Development & Sales Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1963
  3. Penland v. BIRD COAL COMPANYSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1957
  4. Spivey v. NewmanSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1950
  5. Jackson v. StancilSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1960

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

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. State v. SparksSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1974
  2. North Carolina State Highway Commission v. HeldermanSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1974
  3. State v. SpruillSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1987
  4. State v. TempleSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1967
  5. Mann v. VIRGINIA DARE TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, INC.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1973

4 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