Legal Opinion

Howell v. Waters

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided August 19, 1986No. 862SC66PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

WHICHARD, Judge.

Plaintiff contends the court erred by granting defendant’s motion for a directed verdict “in view of plaintiffs evidence that Defendant’s agent misrepresented the boundary lines of the tract of land which plaintiff purchased.” In ruling on a motion for a directed verdict the court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Husketh v. Convenient Systems, 295 N.C. 459, 461, 245 S.E. 2d 507, 508-09 (1978). The motion should be granted only if the evidence is insufficient, as a matter of law, to support a verdict for the nonmoving party. Id.

The…

2Cases cited21 opinions

  1. Marriott Financial Services, Inc. v. Capitol Funds, Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1975
  2. Huss v. HussCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1976
  3. Cofield v. GriffinSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1953
  4. Husketh v. Convenient Systems, Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1978
  5. Hinson v. JeffersonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1975

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

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Creech v. MelnikSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1998
  2. Sunset Beach Development, LLC v. AMEC, Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 2009
  3. Mercadante v. Xe Services, LLCDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2015
  4. Deans v. LaytonCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1988
  5. Thompson-Arthur Paving Co. v. Lincoln Battleground Associates, Ltd.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1989

7 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