Legal Opinion

Environmental Landscape Design Specialist v. Shields

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided June 18, 1985No. 8422DC920PublishedCited by 35 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

JOHNSON, Judge.

The first question we address is whether the court erred in denying defendants’ motions for a directed verdict and for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. The purpose of a motion for directed verdict is to test the sufficiency of the evidence to go to the jury. Cutts v. Casey, 278 N.C. 390, 180 S.E. 2d 297 (1971). In ruling upon a motion for directed verdict made at the close of all the evidence, the court must consider all of the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, including evidence elicited from the defendant favorable to the plaintiff. Tate v. Bryant,…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Dickinson v. PakeSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1974
  2. Cutts v. CaseySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1971
  3. Harris & Harris Construction Co. v. Crain & Denbo, Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1962
  4. Carolina Helicopter Corp. v. Cutter Realty Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1964
  5. Reeves v. HillSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1968

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

3Cited by35 opinions

  1. Booe v. ShadrickSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1988
  2. Crouse v. MineoCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2008
  3. Keith v. DayCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1986
  4. Bushkin Associates, Inc. v. Raytheon CompanyCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1990
  5. Scott v. United Carolina BankCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1998

30 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