Legal Opinion

Sullivan v. Smith

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided April 6, 1982No. 8118SC515PublishedCited by 14 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

WHICHARD, Judge.

Plaintiffs’ sole contention is that the court erred in granting defendant Smith’s motion for judgment NOV. We agree, and accordingly reverse.

A motion for judgment NOV “shall be granted if it appears that the motion for directed verdict could properly have been granted.” G.S. 1A-1, Rule 50(b)(1). A directed verdict or a judgment NOV for a defendant is improper when a plaintiffs evidence, taken as true and considered in the light most favorable to him, with all inferences made and contradictions resolved in his favor, is sufficient as a matter of law to justify a verdict for…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Dickinson v. PakeSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1974
  2. Clark v. BodycombeSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1976
  3. Brown v. Town of LouisburgSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1900
  4. Hendricks v. Leslie Fay, Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1968
  5. Edwards v. HamillSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1964

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

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. Oates v. Jag, Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1985
  2. Bashford v. North Carolina Licensing Board for General ContractorsCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1992
  3. Federated Mutual Insurance v. HardinCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1984
  4. State v. MercerCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1987
  5. Gaito v. AumanCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1984

9 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