Legal Opinion

Rivenbark v. Moore

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided May 18, 1982No. 814SC839PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

CLARK, Judge.

Plaintiffs assign error to the granting of defendants’ motion for directed verdict. A motion for directed verdict under G.S. 1A-1, Rule 50(a), involves a determination of whether the evidence was sufficient to entitle the plaintiff to have a jury pass on it. The question presented to the appellate court in reviewing the decision of the trial court is identical to that presented to the lower court by defendant’s motion: whether the evidence, considered in the light most favorable to plaintiff, was sufficient for submission to the jury. Hunt v. Montgomery Ward and Co., 49 N.C. App.…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Hunt v. Montgomery Ward and Co., Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1980
  2. Hall v. OdomSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1954
  3. Adams v. Growers' Warehouse, Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1949
  4. Sugg v. ParrishCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1981

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Duke University v. St. Paul Mercury InsuranceCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1989
  2. Mills International, Inc. v. Holmes (In re Mills International, Inc.)United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. North Carolina · 2017

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API