Legal Opinion

Bullock v. Williams

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided October 13, 1937PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtDeviw, J.

The appellant noted numerous exceptions to the judge’s charge to the jury, and contends that, particularly, the following should be held for error entitling him to a new trial: “Now, gentlemen, I charge you that if you are satisfied from the evidence that both the plaintiff’s driver, Bandolph Bullock, and the defendant Williams were both negligent, and that both of their negligence was the proximate cause of this accident, that both were negligent, and that the negligence of both was the proximate cause of the accident, then the plaintiff would be entitled to recover in this case, for the…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Ledford v. Valley River Lumber Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1922
  2. Campbell v. . R. R.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1931
  3. Jernigan v. . JerniganSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1935
  4. In Re Will of HardeeSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1924
  5. Taylor v. J. A. Jones Construction Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1927

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

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Hoke v. Atlantic Greyhound Corp.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1947
  2. Hunt v. WootenSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1953
  3. Goode v. BartonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1953
  4. Brunson v. GaineySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1956
  5. Foy v. BremsonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1974

5 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