Legal Opinion

REDEVELOPMENT COM'N OF CITY OF DURHAM v. Holman

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided August 4, 1976No. 7514SC942PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MARTIN, Judge.

Petitioner contends that the trial court erred in allowing respondents’ motion for a remittitur and refusing to grant the petitioner’s motion for a new trial.

While it is generally stated that the judgment should follow the verdict, Bethea v. Kenly, 261 N.C. 730, 136 S.E. 2d 38 (1964), the court has the power to reduce the verdict of its own motion so long as the party in whose favor it was rendered does not object. Cohoon v. Cooper, 186 N.C. 26, 118 S.E. 834 (1923). See Caudle v. Swanson, 248 N.C. 249, 103 S.E. 2d 357 (1958). This practice of remittitur with the successful…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Bethea v. Town of KenlySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1964
  2. Caudle v. SwansonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1958
  3. Harvey v. Atlantic Coast Line RailroadSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1910
  4. Cohoon v. . CooperSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1923

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. Kornegay v. Aspen Asset Group, LLCCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2010
  2. Hanna v. BradyCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1985
  3. Watson v. DixonCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1999
  4. Weeks v. HolsclawSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1982
  5. Allen v. BeddingfieldCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1995

8 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