Legal Opinion

Ingold v. Carolina Power & Light Company

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided May 26, 1971No. 715SC330PublishedCited by 17 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

GRAHAM, Judge.

In determining the sufficiency of the evidence to withstand a motion for a directed verdict made by a defendant under the provisions of Rule 50, we are guided by the same principles that prevailed under our former procedure with respect to motion for nonsuit. Kelly v. Harvester Co., 278 N.C. 153, 179 S.E. 2d 396; Musgrave v. Savings & Loan Assoc., 8 N.C. App. 385, 174 S.E. 2d 820. All evidence which supports plaintiff’s claim must be taken as true and considered in the light most favorable to plaintiff, giving him the benefit of every reasonable inference which may legitimately…

2Cases cited21 opinions

  1. Kelly v. International Harvester CompanySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1971
  2. Bowen v. GardnerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1969
  3. Sowers v. MarleySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1952
  4. Turner v. Southern Power Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1910
  5. Henderson v. Atlantic Coast Line RailroadSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1912

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

3Cited by17 opinions

  1. Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Godwin Building Supply Co.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1979
  2. Oliver Ex Rel. Oliver v. RoyallCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1978
  3. Phelps v. Duke Power Co.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1985
  4. Murphy v. Edwards and WarrenCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1978
  5. Bruegge v. Mastertemp, Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1986

12 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