Legal Opinion

Butner v. Spease

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided February 2, 1940PublishedCited by 102 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Stacy, C. J.,

after stating the facts as above: The case calls for the application of old and familiar principles to new facts. It is conceded that in one respect the record presents a difficult problem. See Powers v. Sternberg, 213 N. C., 41, 195 S. E., 88, and Quinn v. R. R., ibid., 48, 195 S. E., 85. Indeed, the application of the doctrine of insulating the negligence of one by the subsequent intervention of the active negligence of another, as a matter of law, is usually fraught with some knottiness. Smith v. Sink, 211 N. C., 725, 192 S. E., 108. However, the principle is a wholesome one,…

2Cases cited23 opinions

  1. Milwaukee & Saint Paul Railway Co. v. KelloggSupreme Court of the United States · 1877
  2. Lake v. Atlantic WorksMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1872
  3. Powers v. S. Sternberg & Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1938
  4. Harton v. . Telephone Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1906
  5. Smith v. . SinkSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1937

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

3Cited by102 opinions

  1. Hayes v. City of WilmingtonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1956
  2. Murray v. . R. R.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1940
  3. Aldridge Ex Rel. Aldridge v. HastySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1954
  4. Reeves v. . StaleySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1942
  5. Adams v. MillsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1984

97 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