Legal Opinion

Lusk v. Case

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided June 6, 1989No. 8828SC1010PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

LEWIS, Judge.

Plaintiff brings forward in his brief several assignments of error grouped into two basic arguments. Plaintiff contends that the trial court erred in denying his request for a jury instruction on activation of a dormant condition. He also contends that the trial court abused its discretion and erred in denying his G.S. 1A-1, Rule 59(a) motion for a new trial and entering judgment upon the verdict. We have reviewed the record on appeal and find the proceedings below free of prejudicial error.

“Where a requested instruction is not submitted in writing and signed pursuant to G.S.…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Worthington v. BynumSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1982
  2. Watson v. WhiteSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1983
  3. State v. HarrisCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1984
  4. Watson v. WhiteCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1982

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. McLain v. Taco Bell Corp.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 2000
  2. United Laboratories, Inc. v. KuykendallCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1991
  3. Arndt v. First Union National BankCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2005
  4. State v. MossCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2000

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API