Murray v. Murray
Supreme Court of North Carolina
1Opinion of the Court
COPELAND, Justice.
The sole question for our consideration is whether the trial court erred in denying plaintiff’s motions for a directed verdict at the end of all the evidence and for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. These motions can be considered together as they are controlled by the same standards and rules. Dickinson v. Pake, 284 N.C. 576, 201 S.E. 2d 897 (1974). After reviewing the evidence, we conclude that Judge Johnson was correct in leaving the decision of this case to the jury.
The rule in this State is that a directed verdict cannot be granted for the party with the burden of…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Dickinson v. PakeSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1974
- Cutts v. CaseySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1971
- State v. ColsonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1968
- Summey v. CauthenSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1973
- Bowen v. CONSTRUCTORS EQUIPMENT RENTAL COMPANYSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1973
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Lumbee River Electric Membership Corp. v. City of FayettevilleSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1983
- Primerica Life Insurance v. James Massengill & Sons Construction Co.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 2011
- Tan v. TanCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1980
- Davis and Davis Realty Co. v. RodgersCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1989
- Chapel Hill Cinemas, Inc. v. RobbinsCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2001
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.