Legal Opinion

Young v. Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided February 4, 1966No. 439PublishedCited by 26 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtLake, J.

DEPENDANT’S APPEAL

Since the accident out of which this action arose occurred in Ohio, the law of Ohio governs the rights and duties of the parties. Jones v. Elevator Co., 234 N.C. 512, 67 S.E. 2d 492; Russ v. R. R., 220 N.C. 715, 18 S.E. 2d 130. The law of North Carolina governs the procedure to be followed in the trial of the action in the courts of this State.

In passing upon a motion for judgment of nonsuit the plaintiff’s evidence must be taken to be true, must be interpreted in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and all reasonable inferences favorable to him must be drawn…

2Cases cited27 opinions

  1. Short v. Chapman Ex Rel. RhoneySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1964
  2. Hawkins v. Missouri Pacific RailroadSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1950
  3. Pruett v. InmanSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1960
  4. Tart v. RegisterSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1962
  5. Bryant v. WoodliefSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1960

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

3Cited by26 opinions

  1. Boudreau v. BaughmanSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1988
  2. Travenol Laboratories, Inc. v. TurnerCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1976
  3. Cates v. WilsonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1987
  4. Ratliff v. Duke Power Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1966
  5. Scallon v. HooperCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1982

21 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