Legal Opinion

Daughtry v. Turnage

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided August 29, 1978No. 95PublishedCited by 46 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

COPELAND, Justice.

The sole question presented for our consideration on this appeal is whether the trial court erred in denying defendant’s motion for a directed verdict. In passing upon a motion for a directed verdict under G.S. 1A-1, Rule 50, the trial court is confronted with substantially the same question as was formerly presented by a motion for judgment of involuntary nonsuit. Dickinson v. Pake, 284 N.C. 576, 201 S.E. 2d 897 (1974). In this situation, the court must consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-movant, deeming all evidence which tends to support his…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Dickinson v. PakeSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1974
  2. Summey v. CauthenSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1973
  3. Beanblossom v. ThomasSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1966
  4. Ratliff v. Duke Power Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1966
  5. Schloss v. HallmanSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1961

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

3Cited by46 opinions

  1. Murrow v. DanielsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1988
  2. Potts v. BurnetteSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1981
  3. Boyd v. DrumCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1998
  4. Arndt v. First Union National BankCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2005
  5. Clark v. MooreCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1983

41 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