Legal Opinion

Shoe v. Hood

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided January 29, 1960No. 530PublishedCited by 33 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMooRe, J.

Appellants assign as error the peremptory instruction contained in the following portion of the judge’s charge: “It being admitted that the defendant, Bessie C. Hood, was the owner and an occupant of the automobile at the time and place in question and that it was being driven at the time by her husband with her consent for the common benefit and purpose of both, the Court instructs you that this would mean a joint enterprise of the two defendants at the time and place in question. The Court further charges you, as the owner of the automobile in which she was riding, the defendant, Bessie C.…

2Cases cited22 opinions

  1. Keener v. BealSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1957
  2. Cox v. Hennis Freight LinesSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1952
  3. Harper v. . Harper and Wickham v. . HarperSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1945
  4. Harper v. HarperSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1945
  5. McEwen Funeral Service, Inc. v. Charlotte City Coach Lines, Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1958

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

3Cited by33 opinions

  1. Lake Mary Ltd. Partnership v. JohnstonCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2001
  2. McFetters v. McFettersCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1990
  3. Cox v. ShawSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1965
  4. Davis v. JessupSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1962
  5. Eason v. GrimsleySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1961

28 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