Legal Opinion

Watson v. Sylva Tanning Co.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided December 23, 1925PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtAdams, J.

Tbe defendant complains that tbe trial judge in bis instructions to tbe jury failed to “state in a plain and correct manner tbe evidence given in tbe case and to declare and explain tbe law arising thereon.” C. S., 564. In several cases recently decided we have stressed the necessity of observing this requirement and have reiterated the suggestion that a statement of the contentions accompanied with a bare enunciation of a legal principle is not sufficient: it is imperative that the law be declared, explained, and applied to the evidence. Upon at least two of the issues the instructions…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. State v. . O'NealSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1924
  2. Richardson v. American Cotton Mills, Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1925

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. McNeill v. . McNeillSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1943
  2. State v. . VickSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1938
  3. Williams v. Eastern Carolina Coach Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1929
  4. Mack v. . Marshall Field Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1940
  5. Smith v. . KappasSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1941

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