directed verdict test in North Carolina

21 North Carolina opinions name it 1 courts 1979–2026 1 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by North Carolina courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (8)

Case	Followed	Cited
Manganello v. Permastone, Inc.green · 1977 · cited in 4 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 1984–2009 2 sentences 2009App. 86, 88 , 555 S.E.2d 303, 305 (2001) (quoting Manganello v. Permastone, Inc., 291 N.C. 666, 670 , 231 S.E.2d 678, 680 (1977)). 2009App. 86, 88 , 555 S.E.2d 303, 305 (2001) (quoting Manganello v. Permastone, Inc., 291 N.C. 666, 670 , 231 S.E.2d 678, 680 (1977)).	1	4
Scarborough v. Dillard's, Inc.green nc · 2009 · cited in 1 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2026–2026 2 sentences 2026In Scarborough our Supreme Court considered how a directed verdict standard should be reviewed when the statute at issue specifically and distinctly required a claimant to “prove the existence of an aggravating factor by clear and convincing evidence.” Id. at 720 , 693 S.E.2d at 643 ( quoting N.C. 2026In Scarborough our Supreme Court considered how a directed verdict standard should be reviewed when the statute at issue specifically and distinctly required a claimant to “prove the existence of an aggravating factor by clear and convincing evidence.” Id. at 720 , 693 S.E.2d at 643 ( quoting N.C.	1	1
Graves v. Walstongreen nc · 1981 · cited in 1 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2018–2018 2 sentences 2018See, e.g. , Graves , 302 N.C. at 338 , 275 S.E.2d at 489 ("In the present case, plaintiffs did not move for directed verdict at the close of plaintiffs' evidence or at the close of all the evidence. 2018See, e.g. , Graves , 302 N.C. at 338 , 275 S.E.2d at 489 ("In the present case, plaintiffs did not move for directed verdict at the close of plaintiffs' evidence or at the close of all the evidence.	1	1
STARK EX REL. JACOBSEN v. Ford Motor Co.green nc · 2012 · cited in 1 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2013–2013 1 sentence 2013Id. at_, 723 S.E.2d at 761 (emphasis added).	1	1
Turner v. Duke Universitygreen · 1989 · cited in 1 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2012–2012 2 sentences 2012See also Turner, 325 N.C. at 161-62 , 381 S.E.2d at 712 (refusing to uphold directed verdict in medical malpractice case based on expert’s answers to cross-examination questions because doing so would require construing evidence in light most favorable to movants, which “the law does not permit”); Workman v. Rutherford Elec. 2012See also Turner, 325 N.C. at 161-62 , 381 S.E.2d at 712 (refusing to uphold directed verdict in medical malpractice case based on expert’s answers to cross-examination questions because doing so would require construing evidence in light most favorable to movants, which “the law does not permit”); Workman v. Rutherford Elec.	1	1
Barber v. Presbyterian Hospitalgreen ncctapp · 2001 · cited in 1 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2009–2009 2 sentences 2009It is from this order that plaintiff appeals, and we affirm the decision of the trial court. 143 Directed Verdict The purpose of a motion for a directed verdict is to test whether evidence is legally sufficient “to take the case to the jury and support a verdict for the plaintiff.” Barber v. Presbyterian Hosp., 147 N.C. 2009*App. 86, 88 , 555 S.E.2d 303, 305 (2001) (quoting Manganello v. Permastone, Inc., 291 N.C. 666, 670 , 231 S.E.2d 678, 680 (1977)).	1	1
Di Frega v. Pugliesegreen ncctapp · 2004 · cited in 1 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2005–2005 2 sentences 2005Di Frega v. Pugliese, 164 N.C.App. 499, 505 , 596 S.E.2d 456, 461 (2004) (citation omitted). 2005Di Frega v. Pugliese, 164 N.C.App. 499, 505 , 596 S.E.2d 456, 461 (2004) (citation omitted).	1	1
Freese v. Smithgreen ncctapp · 1993 · cited in 1 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2004–2004 2 sentences 2004“The purpose of a motion for a directed verdict is to test the legal sufficiency of the evidence to take the case to the jury.” Freese v. Smith, 110 N.C. 2004App. 28, 33 , 428 S.E.2d 841, 845 (1993).	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in North Carolina. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (13)

Case	Cited	Years
Wallace Ex Rel. Magers v. Evans green ncctapp · 1982 2 sentences 2010Id.; Wallace v. Evans, 60 N.C. 1994Wallace v. Evans, 60 N.C.	8	1984–2010
Weaver v. Sheppa green ncctapp · 2007 1 sentence 2012This conclusion is consistent with this Court’s decision in Weaver v. Sheppa, 186 N.C.	1	2012–2012
Howerton v. Arai Helmet, Ltd. red nc · 2004 1 sentence 2012This aspect of the directed verdict standard is consistent with the Supreme Court’s holding in Howerton that “once the trial court makes a preliminary determination that the scientific or technical area underlying a qualified expert’s opinion is sufficiently reliable (and, of course, relevant), any lingering questions or controversy concerning the quality of the expert’s conclusions go to the weight of the testimony rather than its admissibility.” 358 N.C. at 461 , 597 S.E.2d at 688 .	1	2012–2012
In the Matter of Yocum red nc · 2003 1 sentence 2012This aspect of the directed verdict standard is consistent with the Supreme Court’s holding in Howerton that “once the trial court makes a preliminary determination that the scientific or technical area underlying a qualified expert’s opinion is sufficiently reliable (and, of course, relevant), any lingering questions or controversy concerning the quality of the expert’s conclusions go to the weight of the testimony rather than its admissibility.” 358 N.C. at 461 , 597 S.E.2d at 688 .	1	2012–2012
Ligon v. MATTHEW ALLEN STRICKLAND green ncctapp · 2006 2 sentences 2011Applying the directed verdict standard of review, id. at 136 , 625 S.E.2d at 828 , it is only when the evidence is insufficient to support a verdict in the Aldridges’ favor that the referee’s report may be confirmed. 31 In North Carolina, to acquire title to land by adverse possession, the claimant must “show actual, open, hostile, exclusive, and continuous possession of the land claimed for the prescriptive period . . . under known and visible lines and boundaries.” Merrick v. Peterson, 143 N.C. 2011Applying the directed verdict standard of review, id. at 136 , 625 S.E.2d at 828 , it is only when the evidence is insufficient to support a verdict in the Aldridges’ favor that the referee’s report may be confirmed. 31 In North Carolina, to acquire title to land by adverse possession, the claimant must “show actual, open, hostile, exclusive, and continuous possession of the land claimed for the prescriptive period . . . under known and visible lines and boundaries.” Merrick v. Peterson, 143 N.C.	1	2011–2011
In re Miller neutral nc · 2001 1 sentence 2011App. 656, 663 , 548 S.E.2d 171, 176 , disc. review denied, 354 N.C. 364 , 556 S.E.2d 572 (2001).	1	2011–2011
Muscatell v. Muscatell neutral nc · 2001 1 sentence 2011App. 656, 663 , 548 S.E.2d 171, 176 , disc. review denied, 354 N.C. 364 , 556 S.E.2d 572 (2001).	1	2011–2011
Merrick v. Peterson green ncctapp · 2001 2 sentences 2011Applying the directed verdict standard of review, id. at 136 , 625 S.E.2d at 828 , it is only when the evidence is insufficient to support a verdict in the Aldridges’ favor that the referee’s report may be confirmed. 31 In North Carolina, to acquire title to land by adverse possession, the claimant must “show actual, open, hostile, exclusive, and continuous possession of the land claimed for the prescriptive period . . . under known and visible lines and boundaries.” Merrick v. Peterson, 143 N.C. 2011*App. 656, 663 , 548 S.E.2d 171, 176 , disc. review denied, 354 N.C. 364 , 556 S.E.2d 572 (2001).	1	2011–2011
Garrett v. Smith green ncctapp · 2004 1 sentence 2004Garrett v. Smith, 163 N.C.	1	2004–2004
Hinson v. National Starch & Chemical Corp. green ncctapp · 1990 1 sentence 1997Hinson v. National Starch & Chemical Corp., 99 N.C.	1	1997–1997
Shreve v. Duke Power Co. green ncctapp · 1990 2 sentences 1991Shreve v. Duke Power Co., 97 N.C. 1991Shreve v. Duke Power Co., 97 N.C.	1	1991–1991
Hitchcock v. Cullerton green ncctapp · 1986 2 sentences 1989“The purpose of a motion for a directed verdict is to test the legal sufficiency of the evidence.” Hitchcock v. Cullerton, 82 N.C. 1989App. 296 , 346 S.E. 2d 215 (1986).	1	1989–1989
State v. Livingston neutral ncctapp · 1978 1 sentence 1979State v. Livingston, 35 N.C.	1	1979–1979

Statutes the citing opinions construe

NC § N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1 (9) NC § N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1 (3) NC § N.C. Gen. Stat. § 90-21.12 (3)

Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.

Where else courts name it

AR 386 (1969–2026) TX 90 (1977–2025) MA 53 (1959–2026) KY 40 (1941–2026) IL 29 (1956–2025) FL 28 (1930–2025) GA 27 (1914–2023) NC 21 (1979–2026) OR 19 (1988–2025) MS 19 (1956–2019) MI 18 (1969–2023) AL 17 (1950–2003) OH 14 (2000–2025) CA 13 (1961–2022) MD 13 (1971–1982) SC 11 (1983–2025) LA 9 (1981–2006) UT 9 (1991–2026) MO 9 (1987–2018) ID 7 (1981–2020) KS 7 (1967–2014) TN 7 (2003–2025) IN 6 (1975–2024) IA 6 (1991–2016) CO 6 (1979–2025) NM 6 (1953–2024) CT 5 (1990–1998) DC 5 (1977–2008) RI 5 (1968–2002) AZ 5 (1975–2016) NY 4 (1965–2012) NE 4 (1999–2023) OK 3 (1957–2023) WY 3 (1988–1993) VT 3 (1972–1994) WI 3 (1992–2020) NV 3 (1999–2020) MN 3 (1944–1997) DE 2 (1979–2008) WV 2 (1983–1998)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check