Lusk v. Case
Court of Appeals of North Carolina
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
- Worthington v. BynumSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1982
- Watson v. WhiteSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1983
- State v. HarrisCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1984
- Watson v. WhiteCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1982
3Cited by4 opinions
- McLain v. Taco Bell Corp.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 2000
- United Laboratories, Inc. v. KuykendallCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1991
- Arndt v. First Union National BankCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2005
- State v. MossCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2000