Legal Opinion

Burris v. Shumate

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided October 1, 1985No. 8523DC5PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

JOHNSON, Judge.

The pivotal question we must decide is whether defendant Luther Shumate presented sufficient evidence as to his counterclaim to withstand plaintiffs’ motion for directed verdict. The inherent purpose of G.S. 1A-1, Rule 50(a) motion for directed verdict is to “. . . test the legal sufficiency of the evidence to take the case to the jury and to support a verdict for plaintiffs. . . .” Wallace v. Evans, 60 N.C. App. 145, 146, 298 S.E. 2d 193, 194 (1982). When passing on a motion for a directed verdict “the plaintiff should be given the benefit of all reasonable inferences; . . .…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Cutts v. CaseySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1971
  2. Wallace Ex Rel. Magers v. EvansCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1982
  3. McCollum v. Grove Manufacturing Co.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1982
  4. Beal v. DellingerCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1978
  5. Beal v. DellingerCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1978

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. McNamara v. Wilmington Mall Realty Corp.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1996
  2. Marina Food Associates, Inc. v. Marina Restaurant, Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1990
  3. Henry v. KnudsenCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2010

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

Powered by the Exa API