Legal Opinion

Pitcock v. Fox

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided June 20, 1995No. 9429SC263PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

EAGLES, Judge.

I

Defendants argue that the trial court erred by denying defendants’ motion for directed verdict because the evidence was insufficient to show that plaintiffs acquired an easement by prescription. In deciding whether to grant a motion for directed verdict, the trial court must determine whether the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, is sufficient to take the case to a jury. Freese v. Smith, 110 N.C. App. 28, 33, 428 S.E.2d 841, 845 (1993). “In making this determination!,] a directed verdict should be denied if there is more than a scintilla of…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Dickinson v. PakeSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1974
  2. Summey v. CauthenSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1973
  3. Potts v. BurnetteSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1981
  4. Freese v. SmithCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1993
  5. Snead v. HollomanCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1991

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

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Grace v. KochOhio Supreme Court · 1998
  2. Singleton v. Haywood Electric Membership Corp.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 2002
  3. Yadkin Valley Land Co. v. BakerCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2000
  4. Grace v. KochOhio Supreme Court · 1998
  5. Alston v. JacoxCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2026

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