Legal Opinion

Crisp v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided February 28, 1962No. 99PublishedCited by 16 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMoore, J.

The judge instructed the jury as follows: “. . . (T)he court charges you .. . that if you believe all of the evidence in this case and find the facts to be as the evidence tends to show, that you would answer the issue NO.” The jury did answer the issue “No.”

In the first place, the instruction is insufficient in form. When a peremptory instruction is permissible, the court must leave it to the jurv to determine the credibility of the testimony. Reynolds v. Earley, 241 N.C. 521, 85 S.E. 2d 904; Shelby v. Lackey, 236 N.C. 369, 72 S.E. 2d 757. Where the peremptory instruction is favorable to the…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Swain v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance CompanySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1960
  2. Rayburn v. . Casualty Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1905
  3. Howell v. Travelers Indemnity Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1953
  4. Reynolds v. EarleySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1955
  5. City of Shelby v. LackeySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1952

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

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. Harrelson Ex Rel. Randolph v. State Farm Mutual Automobile InsuranceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1968
  2. Milbank Mutual Insurance Co. v. Dairyland Insurance Co.North Dakota Supreme Court · 1985
  3. Pearson v. Nationwide Mutual InsuranceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1989
  4. Daniels v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance CompanySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1963
  5. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company v. DavisCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1970

11 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