Russell v. Sam Solomon Co.
Court of Appeals of North Carolina
1Opinion of the Court
VAUGHN, Judge.
Two issues are brought for our review: whether Underwood’s testimony concerning the statements and actions of defendant’s employee should have been excluded and whether a directed verdict should have been granted to defendant. We answer both questions in the negative and reverse.
The following portions of Underwood’s testimony were especially relevant to plaintiff’s case:
The shelving I was shown was not a counter top as this. It was just open on the front and back. It was only three shelves on it when I saw it. It was glass shelving. ... Of course, the top piece was missing or…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Page v. SloanSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1972
- Summey v. CauthenSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1973
- Husketh v. Convenient Systems, Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1978
- Snow v. Duke Power Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1979
- Stanley v. SquadritoCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1963
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Schaffner v. Cumberland County Hospital System, Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1985
- Parks v. PerryCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1984
- Grigg v. LesterCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1991
- Kenyon v. GehrigCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2007
- Campbell v. City of High PointCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2001
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.