Howell v. Waters
Court of Appeals of North Carolina
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
- Marriott Financial Services, Inc. v. Capitol Funds, Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1975
- Huss v. HussCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1976
- Cofield v. GriffinSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1953
- Husketh v. Convenient Systems, Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1978
- Hinson v. JeffersonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1975
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Creech v. MelnikSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1998
- Sunset Beach Development, LLC v. AMEC, Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 2009
- Mercadante v. Xe Services, LLCDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2015
- Deans v. LaytonCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1988
- 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.