Legal Opinion

Evans v. Queen City Coach Company

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided November 25, 1959No. 250PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Per curiam

Defendants have brought forward and discussed in their brief four assignments of error to the charge of the court. These four assignments of error have been carefully considered by us, and prejudicial error sufficient to warrant -a new trial -is not shown in any one of them. These assignments of error are overruled.

Defendants’ only other assignment of error brought forward -and discussed in their brief is the refusal of the trial court to grant their motion to set aside the verdict for the reason that the damages awarded by the jury are excessive -and disproportionate to the injuries…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Lamm v. LorbacherSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1952
  2. Francis v. . FrancisSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1943
  3. Freeman v. . BellSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1909
  4. Hinton v. ClineSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1953
  5. In Re the Will of KnightSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1959

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Savino Dagnello v. Long Island Rail Road CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1961
  2. Cole v. Duke Power Co.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1986
  3. Coletrane v. ChristianCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1979
  4. Sherrill v. BoyceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1965
  5. Griffin v. GriffinCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1980

1 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