Legal Opinion

State v. . Riddle and Huffman

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided January 10, 1934PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtAdahs, J.

Tbe first, fourth, sixteenth, and nineteenth exceptions are clearly untenable and call for no discussion; and as to exceptions eleven and twelve it is manifest that tbe court could not have granted tbe motion for dismissal of tbe action without exercising arbitrary disregard of tbe State’s evidence. Beasley testified unequivocally that tbe defendants were bis assailants.

On tbe examination of John C. Storey, deputy sheriff, who was a witness for tbe State, tbe solicitor elicited tbe following testimony: “Q. Did you examine bis (Eiddle’s) leg to see whether there was any bruise on it or not? A.…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. State v. . LeaSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1932
  2. State v. . GarrettSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1874
  3. State v. Thompson.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1912
  4. State v. . RhodesSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1932
  5. Braid v. . LukinsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1886

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

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. State v. RogersSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1951
  2. State v. GraysonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1954
  3. Branch v. StateSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1967
  4. State v. . CampbellSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1921
  5. State v. WoodSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1949

4 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