Legal Opinion

Ayscue v. Mullen

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided December 3, 1985No. 8510DC460PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ARNOLD, Judge.

Defendants first contend that there is insufficient evidence to support plaintiffs’ claims of false imprisonment and therefore the trial court erred in denying defendants’ motions for a directed verdict and for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. We disagree.

Settled principles establish that the purpose of 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; that in determining such a motion the evidence should be considered in the light most favorable to plaintiffs, and the…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Newton v. Standard Fire InsuranceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1976
  2. Hinson v. DawsonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1956
  3. Wallace Ex Rel. Magers v. EvansCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1982
  4. Worthy v. . KnightSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1936
  5. Hales v. McCrory-McLellan CorporationSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1963

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

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Diana Pepper Sevigny v. Andrew F. Dicksey, Individually, and the Town of Carolina Beach, (Two Cases)Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1988
  2. K-Mart Corporation v. WashingtonNevada Supreme Court · 1993
  3. Mullins Ex Rel. Mullins v. Brody's Store ManagerCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1994
  4. Rogers v. T.J.X. Companies, Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1991
  5. Mullins Ex Rel. Mullins v. Brody's Store ManagerCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1994

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