Legal Opinion

Tribble v. Swinson

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided May 4, 1938PublishedCited by 14 opinions

1Per curiam

The evidence for plaintiff fails to make out a prima facie case on the essential facts necessary under the doctrine of re-spondeat superior to hold the defendant Swinson responsible for the alleged negligent acts or tort of the defendant Yita. These essentials have been stated repeatedly in decisions of this Court, among which are: Linville v. Nissen, 162 N. C., 95, 77 S. E., 1096; Grier v. Grier, 192 N. C., 760, 135 S. E., 852; Martin v. Bus Line, 197 N. C., 720, 150 S. E., 501; Jeffrey v. Mfg. Co., 197 N. C., 724, 150 S. E., 503; Cole v. Funeral Home, 207 N. C., 271, 176 S. E., 553; Van…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Linville v. . NissenSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1913
  2. Martin v. Greensboro-Fayetteville Bus LineSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1929
  3. Parrish v. Boysell Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1936
  4. Van Landingham Ex Rel. Van Landingham v. Singer Sewing MacHine Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1934
  5. Liverman v. . ClineSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1937

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

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. Smith v. . Duke UniversitySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1941
  2. Carter v. . Motor LinesSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1947
  3. McLamb v. BeasleySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1940
  4. McLamb v. . BeasleySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1940
  5. Salmon v. . PearceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1943

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