N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1

Rule 50 does not permit a judge to direct a verdict for the party bearing the burden of proof when recovery depends on the credibility of that party’s witnesses.

Cutts v. Casey · filed 1971-04-14Rule 50

Rule 50, which deals only with jury trials, does not purport to confer upon the judge the power to pass upon the credibility of the evidence and to direct a verdict in favor of the party having the burden of proof — nor could it do so.

Under Rule 50(a), a defendant’s motion for a directed verdict turns on whether the plaintiff’s evidence is sufficient for submission to the jury.

Stewart v. Nation-Wide Check Corporation · filed 1971-07-30Rule 50(a)

The question of law presented by defendant’s motion for a directed verdict under Rule 50(a), G.S. 1A-1, is whether plaintiff’s evidence was sufficient for submission to the jury.

Rule 50(a) asks whether the evidence is sufficient to let the jury decide the plaintiff’s claim.

Raynor v. Foster · filed 1971-08-18(a)

A defendant’s motion made in a jury trial for a directed verdict under Rule 50(a) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, G.S. 1A-1, presents substantially the same question as that formerly presented by a motion for judgment of involuntary nonsuit, namely, whether the evidence was sufficient to entitle the plaintiff to have the jury pass on it.

In a jury trial, a motion for a directed verdict is the procedure for challenging whether the opposing party’s evidence is sufficient to go to the jury.

Creasman v. FIRST FEDERAL SAVINGS & LOAN ASS'N · filed 1971-09-06Rule 50(a)

In a jury trial, the motion for a directed verdict is now the only procedure by which a party can challenge the sufficiency of his adversary’s evidence to go to the jury.

Rule 50(a) permits a directed verdict for a defendant only when the evidence, viewed in the plaintiff’s favor, is legally insufficient to support a verdict for the plaintiff.

Investment Properties of Asheville, Inc. v. Allen · filed 1972-06-28Rule 50(a)

On a motion for a directed verdict by the defendant, the court must consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and may grant the motion only if, as a matter of law, the evidence is insufficient to justify a verdict for the plaintiff.

Rule 50(a) allows all parties to move for a directed verdict, but a court generally cannot direct a verdict for a party bearing the burden of proof.

American Personnel, Inc. v. Harbolick · filed 1972-09-20Rule 50(a)

Although Rule 50(a) provides that all parties may move for directed verdict, it is generally true that the court cannot direct a verdict in favor of a party having the burden of proof.

Rule 50(a) does not permit a directed verdict when the evidence, viewed favorably to the opposing party, presents questions for the jury.

Samples v. Maxson-Betts Co. · filed 1973-06-13Rule 50(a)

We are of the opinion that the evidence on this issue was sufficient to present questions for the jury whether the earnings of the plaintiff were undisclosed and gained in the course of, or in connection with, the services of the plaintiff which were owed to the defendant, and whether those earnings were achieved as a result of the plaintiff’s breach of his fiduciary relationship with the defendant. Therefore, it was error for the trial court to direct a verdict, dismissing the counterclaim of the defendant.

Rule 50(b)(2) prevents an appellate court from directing entry of judgment on a denied directed-verdict motion unless the movant sought post-verdict judgment or the trial judge acted on the motion after the verdict.

Hensley v. Ramsey · filed 1973-08-31(b)(2)

Since the defendant made no post-verdict motion and since the trial judge after verdict did not of his own motion consider whether a directed verdict should have been entered, this Court “may not direct entry of judgment in accordance with the motion” by reason of the express terms Of Eule 50 (b) (2).

Rule 50(a) permits a directed verdict when the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, would not justify a verdict for the plaintiff.

Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Foil · filed 1974-02-25Rule 50(a)

A defendant’s motion for a directed-verdict at the close of plaintiff’s evidence under G.S. 1A-1, Rule 50(a) presents substantially the same question formerly presented by a motion for involuntary nonsuit; that is, whether the evidence considered in the light most favorable to plaintiff would justify a verdict in his favor.

Rule 50 permits a motion to be granted in favor of a party with the burden of proof when the opposing party’s evidence meets that burden.

Price v. Conley · filed 1974-04-17Rule 50

The only evidence in this case supplementing the admissions and stipulations was plaintiff’s own testimony; therefore, if defendant’s burden was met, it was met for him by plaintiff. In such instance, it is permissible to grant a Rule 50 motion in favor of a party with the burden of proof.

Rule 50(b)(2) bars an appellate court from directing entry of judgment on a directed verdict motion unless the movant sought judgment under Rule 50(b)(1) or the trial judge acted on the motion after the verdict.

Chavis v. Reynolds · filed 1974-08-21Rule 50(b)(2)

Defendant properly and in apt time made his motions for a directed verdict, but the record fails to show that any motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict was made in accordance with G.S. 1A-1, Rule 50 (b) (1) nor did the judge following the verdict on his own motion grant, deny, or redeny the motion for directed verdict made at the close of all the evidence. ... Therefore, although we find that the trial judge should have granted defendant’s motion for directed verdict made at the close of all the evidence, we may not direct entry in accordance with the motion.

Rule 50(a) tests whether the evidence is legally sufficient to submit the case to the jury and support a verdict for the plaintiff.

Manganello v. Permastone, Inc. · filed 1977-01-31(a)

A motion by a defendant for a directed verdict under G.S. 1A-1, Rule 50(a) tests the legal sufficiency of the evidence to take the case to the jury and support a verdict for the plaintiff.

Under Rule 50(a), an appellate court assesses the sufficiency of evidence for a directed verdict under the same standards as the trial judge.

Coggins v. Fox · filed 1977-09-21Rule 50(a)

This Court is confronted with determining the sufficiency of the evidence based upon the same standards as those to be applied by the trial judge.

Rule 50 permits a directed verdict when a negligence plaintiff fails to offer evidence beyond speculation or conjecture on every essential element.

Oliver Ex Rel. Oliver v. Royall · filed 1978-05-02Rule 50

The plaintiff, to overcome a motion for a directed verdict, is required to offer evidence sufficient to establish, beyond mere speculation or conjecture, every essential element of negligence. Upon his failure to do so, a motion for a directed verdict is properly granted.

Rule 50 does not bar a directed verdict for the party bearing the burden of proof when that party’s right to recover does not depend on witness credibility.

McAdams v. Union Security Life Insurance · filed 1978-06-06Rule 50

In support of this argument, the plaintiff refers us to Cutts v. Casey, 278 N.C. 390, 180 S.E. 2d 297 (1971). That case held that a trial court, acting pursuant to G.S. 1A-1, Rule 50, cannot direct a verdict in favor of the party having the burden of proof when his right to recover depends upon the credibility of his witnesses. 278 N.C. at 417, 180 S.E. 2d at 311. No such situation is presented by the case sub judice. Here, the defendant was not required to rely upon the credibility of its witness. The defendant’s witness, Dr. Michael, did not substantially contradict the plaintiffs evidence, which consisted largely of the testimony of the plaintiff. Rather, Dr. Michael’s testimony tended to explain and clarify the plaintiff’s testimony and not to vary with that testimony. Thus, the prohibition of Cutts is inapplicable to the present facts.

Rule 50 permits a directed verdict when the plaintiff’s evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to her, is insufficient to establish her claim.

Coltraine v. Pitt County Memorial Hospital · filed 1978-04-04Rule 50

We believe that plaintiff’s evidence, viewed, as it must be, in the light most favorable to her, was not sufficient to overcome defendant’s motion for directed verdict (G.S. 1A-1, Rule 50).

Rule 50 requires specific grounds for a directed verdict motion and limits appellate entry of judgment when the required post-verdict motion was not made.

Hodges v. Hodges · filed 1978-08-15Rule 50(a), (b)(1), and (b)(2)

Under these circumstances, Rule 50(b)(2) expressly provides that the appellate court, on finding that a trial judge should have granted a motion for directed verdict made at the close of all the evidence, may not direct entry of judgment in accordance with the motion.

Rule 50(a) sets the legal-sufficiency standard for directed verdicts, and Rule 51(a) requires the judge to declare and explain the law arising from the evidence.

Tuttle v. Tuttle · filed 1978-11-21

On a motion by a defendant for a directed verdict pursuant to G.S. 1A-1, Rule 50(a), testing the legal sufficiency of the evidence to take the case to the jury and to support a verdict for plaintiff, plaintiff’s evidence must be taken as true and considered in the light most favorable to plaintiff.

Rule 50 does not permit a directed verdict for the defendant when the evidence leaves negligence and contributory negligence for the jury to decide.

Partin v. Carolina Power and Light Co. · filed 1979-04-17Rule 50

The defendant’s motion for directed verdict under G.S. 1A-1, Rule 50, raises the question of whether plaintiff’s evidence was sufficient to go to the jury. ... Applying these principles of law to the evidence in the case sub judice, we conclude that the evidence was not sufficient to establish negligence as a matter of law on the part of Ben Partin, that the trial court erred in allowing the directed verdict for defendant, and that we must vacate the judgment directing a verdict and order a retrial.

Under Rule 50, a directed verdict is improper when the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the opposing party, is sufficient for submission to the jury.

Thompson v. Soles · filed 1979-07-31Rule 50

The test, on a motion for a directed verdict, is whether the evidence, considered in the light most favorable to the party against whom it is made, is sufficient for submission to the jury. ... This is sufficient evidence to reach the jury on the issue of equitable estoppel, and therefore the court erred in entering a directed verdict in favor of defendant.

Rule 50 requires the court to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and ask whether it would support a verdict in the plaintiff's favor.

Thompson & Little, Inc. v. Colvin · filed 1980-05-20

A motion for a directed verdict under G.S. 1A-1, Rule 50, of the Rules of Civil Procedure raises the question of whether the evidence, considered in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, would support a verdict in his favor.

Rule 50(a) requires denial of a defendant’s motion for a directed verdict if the evidence, viewed favorably to the plaintiff, provides more than a scintilla of support for every element of the plaintiff’s prima facie case.

Dorsey ex rel. Dorsey v. Buchanan · filed 1981-06-16Rule 50(a)

A trial court should deny a defendant’s motion for a directed verdict under G.S. 1A-1, Rule 50(a) when reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and giving plaintiff the benefit of all reasonable inferences, the court finds any evidence more than a scintilla to support plaintiff’s prima facie case in all its constituent elements.

Rule 50(a) requires a court deciding a directed verdict motion to consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and determine whether it is sufficient for submission to a jury.

Rivenbark v. Moore · filed 1982-05-18Rule 50(a)

A motion for directed verdict under G.S. 1A-1, Rule 50(a), involves a determination of whether the evidence was sufficient to entitle the plaintiff to have a jury pass on it. The question presented to the appellate court in reviewing the decision of the trial court is identical to that presented to the lower court by defendant’s motion: whether the evidence, considered in the light most favorable to plaintiff, was sufficient for submission to the jury.

Rule 50(a) requires a court deciding a defendant’s directed verdict motion to view the evidence favorably to the plaintiff and draw reasonable inferences in the plaintiff’s favor.

McCollum v. Grove Manufacturing Co. · filed 1982-07-20Rule 50(a)

On such a motion, the court must consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, taking all evidence which tends to support plaintiffs position as true, resolving all evidentiary conflicts in favor of the plaintiff, and giving the plaintiff the benefit of all inferences reasonably to be drawn in his favor.

Rule 50(a) permits a directed verdict for a defendant only when, viewing the plaintiff’s evidence favorably, the plaintiff cannot recover under any reasonable view of the facts.

Koonce v. May · filed 1982-12-07Rule 50(a)

A motion by a defendant for a directed verdict under G.S. 1A-1, Rule 50(a) of the Rules of Civil Procedure tests the legal sufficiency of the evidence to take the case to the jury and support a verdict for the plaintiff. On such a motion, plaintiffs evidence must be taken as true and considered in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, giving plaintiff the benefit of every reasonable inference to be drawn therefrom. A directed verdict for the defendant is not properly allowed unless it appears as a matter of law that a recovery cannot be had by the plaintiff upon any view of the facts which the evidence reasonably tends to establish.

Rule 50(a) requires a court deciding a directed verdict motion at the close of the plaintiff’s evidence to view that evidence in the plaintiff’s favor and give the plaintiff every reasonable inference.

Scott v. Kiker · filed 1982-11-16Rule 50(a)

Today, we use a motion for directed verdict pursuant to G.S. 1A-1, Rule 50(a). When a motion for directed verdict is made at the close of plaintiffs evidence, the trial judge must determine whether the evidence, taken in the light most favorable to plaintiff, and giving plaintiff the benefit of every reasonable inference, was sufficient to withstand defendant’s motion for directed verdict.

Rule 50(a) permits a trial judge to grant a directed verdict while the jury is deliberating without the jury’s assent.

Kuykendall v. Turner · filed 1983-04-19(a)

Before determining if the entry of directed verdicts was proper here, we note that the trial judge acted in accordance with G.S. 1A-1, Rule 50(a) when he granted directed verdicts on the assault and battery issues while the jury was deliberating.

Rule 50(a) requires the court to view the evidence and reasonable inferences in the nonmovant’s favor when deciding a motion for directed verdict.

Copy Products, Inc. v. Randolph · filed 1983-06-07Rule 50(a)

The plaintiff lost this case on a G.S. 1A-1, Rule 50(a) motion for a directed verdict. On a directed verdict motion, ... the court must consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-movant, deeming all evidence which tends to support his position to be true, resolving all eviden-tiary conflicts favorably to him and giving the non-movant the benefit of all inferences reasonably to be drawn in his favor. ... When considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, including resolving evidentiary conflicts in its favor, we conclude that the entry of a directed verdict for the defendants was improper.

Rule 50(a) allows a directed verdict when the plaintiff’s evidence is insufficient to establish every element needed for relief.

Hong v. George Goodyear Co. · filed 1983-09-06Rule 50(a)

A motion for directed verdict presents the question of whether the evidence, as presented by the plaintiffs in this case, was sufficient to allow a jury to pass on it.

On a Rule 50 motion for a directed verdict, the court must view all evidence in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion.

Crisp v. Benfield · filed 1983-10-04Rule 50

In ruling on a motion for a directed verdict under G.S. 1A-1, Rule 50 of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure, the trial court must consider all the evidence in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion.

Rule 50(a) requires denial of a directed verdict when more than a scintilla of evidence supports every element of the plaintiff’s prima facie case.

Jones v. Allred · filed 1983-10-18Rule 50(a)

The motion should be denied if the court finds more than a scintilla of evidence to support the plaintiffs prima facie case in all its constituent elements.

Rule 50(a) requires a directed verdict to be denied when the plaintiff’s evidence is sufficient to submit the case to the jury.

Hefner v. Stafford · filed 1983-11-01Rule 50(a)

The scope of our review is to determine whether the evidence which plaintiff did introduce was sufficient to require submission of the case to the jury. ... We hold that the trial court erred when it granted the defendant’s motion for a directed verdict. The case must be remanded for a new trial.

Rule 50(a) requires a court reviewing a directed verdict to consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and decide whether it was sufficient for submission to the jury.

Kraemer v. Moore · filed 1984-04-03Rule 50(a)

The scope of our review, derived from G.S. 1A-1, Rule 50(a), is “whether the evidence, when considered in the light most favorable to plaintiff, was sufficient for submission to the jury.”

Rule 50(a) permits a directed verdict for a defendant only when the evidence, viewed in the plaintiff’s favor, cannot support a verdict for the plaintiff.

Murdock v. Ratliff · filed 1984-04-30Rule 50(a)

A defendant’s motion for a directed verdict may be granted only if, as a matter of law, the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiff, is insufficient to justify a verdict for plaintiff.

Rule 50(a) allows a directed verdict when the plaintiff’s evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, is insufficient for submission to the jury.

Air Traffic Conference of America v. Marina Travel, Inc. · filed 1984-06-19Rule 50(a)

The only issue on appeal is whether the trial court properly granted the defendant’s motion for a directed verdict. The scope of our review is whether the evidence, when considered in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, is sufficient for submission to the jury.

Rule 50(a) requires the court to view the evidence in the plaintiff's favor when deciding defendants' motion for a directed verdict, even when defendants seek a verdict for the plaintiff over the plaintiff's objection.

Willis v. Russell · filed 1984-05-15Rule 50(a)

The appropriate standard of review is set forth in Koonce v. May, 59 N.C.App. 633, 634, 298 S.E.2d 69, 71 (1982): A motion by a defendant for a directed verdict under G.S. 1A-1, Rule 50(a) of the Rules of Civil Procedure tests the legal sufficiency of the evidence to take the case to the jury and support a verdict for the plaintiff. ... Under the circumstances, the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiff. When so viewed, it is clear that a prima facie case of breach of contract was made out, which the jury, rather than the court, should have decided.

Rule 50 allows a directed verdict only when the evidence is legally insufficient to support a verdict for the plaintiff; if reasonable minds could differ, the case goes to the jury.

Henderson v. Traditional Log Homes, Inc. · filed 1984-09-04Rule 50(a)

The motion for directed verdict may be granted only if the evidence is insufficient, as a matter of law, to support a verdict for the plaintiff. If the evidence is such that reasonable minds could differ as to whether plaintiff is entitled to recover, then a directed verdict should not be granted and the case should go to the jury.

Rule 50(a) permits a directed verdict only when the evidence, viewed in the non-moving party’s favor, is legally insufficient to support a verdict for that party.

Eatman v. Bunn · filed 1985-02-05Rule 50(a)

The purpose of a motion for directed verdict, made pursuant to G.S. 1A-1, Rule 50(a), is to test the legal sufficiency of the evidence to take the case to the jury and to support a verdict for the non-moving party. ... The motion may be granted only if the evidence is insufficient, as a matter of law, to support a verdict for the non-moving party.

Rule 50 entitles a party to a directed verdict when the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the opposing party, fails to establish an essential element of the claim.

Godfrey v. Van Harris Realty, Inc. · filed 1985-02-05Rule 50

Under G.S. 1A-1, Rule 50 defendant is entitled to a directed verdict only if the evidence, considered in the light most favorable to plaintiffs, fails to show each and every element required to establish an easement by prescription.

Rule 50 permits a directed verdict only when the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, is insufficient as a matter of law to support a verdict for the plaintiff.

Phelps v. Duke Power Co. · filed 1985-08-06Rule 50

A motion for a directed verdict made pursuant to G.S. 1A-1, Rule 50 tests the sufficiency of the evidence to go to the jury. In determining the sufficiency of the evidence to withstand a motion for a directed verdict, the court must consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and may grant the motion only if, as a matter of law, the evidence is insufficient to justify a verdict for the plaintiff.

The Rule 50(a) standard for a directed verdict applies to a defendant’s counterclaim.

Burris v. Shumate · filed 1985-10-01Rule 50(a)

These principles are equally applicable to defendants’ counterclaim.

Rule 50(a) permits a directed verdict only when the evidence is insufficient to submit the claim to a jury.

Bruegge v. Mastertemp, Inc. · filed 1986-12-16Rule 50(a)

We hold that plaintiffs presented sufficient evidence of defendant’s actionable negligence to withstand defendant’s motion for a directed verdict.

Rule 50(a) requires denial of a directed verdict when more than a scintilla of evidence supports the plaintiff’s prima facie case.

Rice v. Wood · filed 1986-08-05Rule 50(a)

The purpose of a G.S. 1A-1, Rule 50(a) motion for directed verdict is to test the legal sufficiency of the evidence to take the case to the jury. ... Looking at the five factors stated by the court in O’Briant v. Lee, supra, we find that there was substantial evidence, clearly more than a scintilla, sufficient to support plaintiffs’ prima facie case that the transaction in fact constituted a mortgage and that the trial court properly denied defendants’ motion for directed verdict made at the close of all the evidence.

Rule 50(a) permits a directed verdict when the evidence is legally insufficient to take the case to the jury.

McMurray v. Surety Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n · filed 1986-09-16(a)

A motion for directed verdict under G.S. 1A-1, Rule 50(a) tests the legal sufficiency of the evidence to take the case to the jury.

Rule 50(a) tests the legal sufficiency of the evidence on a motion for a directed verdict.

Allison v. Food Lion, Inc. · filed 1987-02-03Rule 50(a)

The purpose of a motion for a directed verdict is to test the legal sufficiency of the evidence. G.S. 1A-1, Rule 50(a); Wallace v. Evans, 60 N.C.App. 145, 298 S.E.2d 193 (1982).

Rule 50(a) tests whether the evidence, viewed in the plaintiff’s favor, is legally sufficient to submit the case to a jury.

Johnson v. Hunnicutt · filed 1987-07-21Rule 50(a)

The purpose of a motion for a directed verdict is to test the legal sufficiency of the evidence. G.S. 1A-1, Rule 50(a); Wallace v. Evans, 60 N.C. App. 145, 298 S.E. 2d 193 (1982). The evidence must be taken in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. ... There is no evidence that Ben Hunnicutt had authority to act for the three other owners, and there is no evidence the three other owners ratified the acts of Ben Hunnicutt or the statements of Cassie Mae Hunnicutt.

Rule 50(a) tests whether the plaintiff’s evidence is legally sufficient to reach the jury, with the evidence viewed in the plaintiff’s favor.

Wellmon v. HICKORY CONST. CO., INC. · filed 1987-12-15Rule 50(a)

A motion by a defendant for a directed verdict under G.S. 1A-1, Rule 50(a) tests the legal sufficiency of the evidence to take the case to the jury and support a verdict for the plaintiff. On such a motion, the nonmoving party’s evidence must be taken as true and considered in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, giving plaintiff the benefit of every reasonable inference to be drawn therefrom.

Rule 50(a) permits a directed verdict for a defendant only when the plaintiff cannot recover under any reasonable view of the evidence, taken in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.

Wiggins v. Paramount Motor Sales, Inc. · filed 1988-03-01Rule 50(a)

A Motion for a Directed Verdict under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 50(a) of the Rules of Civil Procedure tests the legal sufficiency of the evidence to take the case to the jury and support a verdict for the plaintiff. On such a motion, the plaintiffs evidence must be taken as true and the evidence must be considered in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, giving the plaintiff the benefit of every reasonable inference to be drawn therefrom. A directed verdict for the defendant is not properly allowed unless it appears as a matter of law that a recovery cannot be had by the plaintiff upon any view of the facts that the evidence reasonably tends to establish.

Rule 50(a) permits a directed verdict only when the evidence, viewed in the plaintiff’s favor with all reasonable inferences, is legally insufficient to support a verdict.

West v. King's Department Store, Inc. · filed 1988-03-09Rule 50(a)

In Manganello v. Permastone, Inc., 291 N.C. 666, 231 S.E. 2d 678 (1977), this Court held that a motion by a defendant for a directed verdict under N.C.G.S. § 1A-1, Rule 50(a), tests the legal sufficiency of the evidence to take the case to the jury and support a verdict for the plaintiff. ... When viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiff and giving to him all reasonable inferences, we find the facts surrounding Mr. West’s detainment to be sufficient to take his case to the jury. A directed verdict on Mr. West’s claim for false imprisonment was improper.

Rule 50(a) permits a directed verdict when the plaintiff’s evidence is insufficient to submit an essential element to the jury.

Harshbarger v. Murphy · filed 1988-05-31Rule 50(a)

We have before this Court one issue to review: whether the trial court committed prejudicial error in granting defendant’s motion for a directed verdict pursuant to G.S. 1A-1, Rule 50(a). For the reasons noted below, we find that defendant’s motion was properly allowed.

Rule 50(a) tests whether the plaintiff’s evidence is legally sufficient to go to the jury and support a verdict.

Shreve v. Duke Power Co. · filed 1990-03-20Rule 50(a)

A motion by a defendant for a directed verdict under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 50(a) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, tests the legal sufficiency of the evidence to take the case to the jury and support a verdict for the plaintiff.

Under Rule 50, evidence showing only a possibility of causation is insufficient to send the issue to a jury; some degree of probability is required.

Hinson v. National Starch & Chemical Corp. · filed 1990-06-19Rule 50

Drawing every reasonable inference from the evidence and considering the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff, we determine that the ‘general state of the evidence,’ including Dr. Goodman’s expert testimony, raises no more than a possibility that defendant’s actions caused plaintiff’s pulmonary impairment. Some degree of probability, however small, must exist to provide the jury with a question of causation to resolve.

Rule 50 permits a directed verdict for a defendant only when the evidence, viewed in the plaintiff’s favor, cannot support a verdict for the plaintiff.

Atlantic Tobacco Co. v. Honeycutt · filed 1990-12-18

Only where the evidence, when considered in that light, is insufficient to support a verdict in the plaintiff’s favor should defendant’s motion for a directed verdict be granted.

Rule 50(a) requires courts deciding a directed verdict motion to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and give that party every reasonable inference.

Hazelwood v. Landmark Builders, Inc. · filed 1990-10-02Rule 50(a)

In determining a motion for directed verdict under G.S. 1A-1, Rule 50(a), the evidence must be reviewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. The non-moving party, in this case, plaintiff, should be given the benefit of every reasonable inference that may be drawn.

Rule 50 makes a directed verdict rarely appropriate for a party bearing the burden of proof when the evidence presents conflicting inferences for the jury.

Looney v. Community Bible Holiness Church · filed 1991-07-16Rule 50

As our Supreme Court has noted, it is rarely appropriate to grant a directed verdict pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 50 of the Rules of Civil Procedure for a party bearing the burden of proof. See Bank v. Burnette, 297 N.C. 524, 256 S.E.2d 388 (1979), and cases and authorities cited and discussed therein. In Burnette, the Court’s resolution of this question focused on the proposition that the credibility of evidence will usually be left to the jury to determine. But the Court recognized that even when credibility of the evidence may not be questioned, conflicting inferences arising on the evidence must be resolved by the jury. We perceive that the case now before us presents more of a conflicting inference than a credibility question.

Rule 50(a) permits a directed verdict when the evidence is legally insufficient to take the plaintiff’s claim to the jury and support a verdict.

B. B. Walker Co. v. Burns International Security Services, Inc. · filed 1993-01-05Rule 50(a)

“A motion by a defendant for a directed verdict under G.S. 1A-1, Rule 50(a) tests the legal sufficiency of the evidence to take the case to the jury and support a verdict for the plaintiff.”

Rule 50 requires the court to decide whether the evidence is legally sufficient for the nonmovant to have a jury decide the issue.

Matter of Will of Jarvis · filed 1993-07-02Rule 50

A motion for directed verdict under N.C.G.S. § 1A-1, Rule 50 (1990), presents the question whether as a matter of law the evidence is sufficient to entitle the nonmovant to have a jury decide the issue.

Rule 50(a) permits a claim supported by sufficient evidence to go to the jury rather than end on a directed verdict.

Powell v. Peachtree Fasteners, Inc. · filed 1993-06-01Rule 50(a)

Defendant presented ample evidence of plaintiffs’ breach of fiduciary duty. Accordingly, the trial court did not err in denying plaintiffs’ motion for a directed verdict on this claim at the close of defendant’s evidence.

Rule 50(a) requires a directed verdict motion to test whether the evidence is legally sufficient to reach the jury and support a verdict for the opposing party.

McDonald v. Medford · filed 1993-08-17Rule 50(a)

A motion . . . for a directed verdict under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 50(a) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, tests the legal sufficiency of the evidence to take the case to the jury and support a verdict for the [opposing party].

Rule 50(a) requires trial and appellate courts to decide whether the evidence, viewed in the plaintiff’s favor with every reasonable inference, is sufficient to submit to a jury.

Phillips v. Winston-Salem/Forsyth County Board of Education · filed 1994-12-06Rule 50(a)

A motion for a directed verdict by the defendant pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 50(a), presents an identical question for trial and appellate courts: whether the evidence, considered in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and given every reasonable inference, is sufficient to submit to the jury.

Rule 50(a) requires the court to view the evidence in the plaintiff’s favor and decide whether it is sufficient to go to the jury on a defendant’s motion for directed verdict.

Greene v. Carpenter, Wilson, Cannon & Blair, P.A. · filed 1995-07-05Rule 50(a)

On a defendant’s motion for directed verdict, the trial court must determine whether the evidence, when considered in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, is sufficient to take the case to the jury.

Rule 50(a) permits a directed verdict only when the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, cannot support a verdict for that party as a matter of law.

Brown v. Flowe · filed 1998-03-03Rule 50(a)

In ruling on a motion for a directed verdict pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 50(a), the trial court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmovant and may grant the motion only if, as a matter of law, the evidence is insufficient to support a verdict in favor of the nonmovant.

Rule 50(a) requires denial of a directed verdict motion when the evidence permits an inference favorable to the nonmoving party, including when the movant bears the burden of proof.

Long v. Harris · filed 2000-04-18Rule 50(a)

Although plaintiffs presented conflicting evidence as to defendant’s speed and opportunity to avoid the collision at issue, defendant’s showing permitted the inference that he was not negligent. The trial court therefore properly denied the directed verdict motion of plaintiffs, the party with the burden of proof.

Rule 50(a) applies to directed verdicts in jury cases, while Rule 41(b) governs involuntary dismissal in a nonjury case.

Miles v. Carolina Forest Ass'n · filed 2004-11-16Rule 50(a) and Rule 41(b)

In applying our relevant standard of review to the trial court’s findings supporting its order granting a directed verdict in favor of defendant, we note that directed verdicts are appropriate only in jury cases. Bryant v. Kelly, 279 N.C. 123, 129, 181 S.E.2d 438, 441 (1971); N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 50(a) (2003). This case was tried without a jury. Therefore, we shall treat these motions as having been a motion for involuntary dismissal under Rule 41(b) and shall apply our correct standard of review under that rule. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 41(b) (2003); Higgins v. Builders and Finance, Inc., 20 N.C. App. 1, 7, 200 S.E.2d 397, 402 (1973), cert. denied, 284 N.C. 616, 201 S.E.2d 689 (1974).

Rule 50(a) requires the court to view the evidence in the plaintiff’s favor and decide whether it is sufficient to submit to a jury.

Castle McCulloch, Inc. v. Freedman · filed 2005-04-05Rule 50(a)

A motion for a directed verdict under Rule 50(a) of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure presents the same question for both trial and appellate courts: whether the evidence, taken in a light most favorable to plaintiff, was sufficient for submission to the jury.

Rule 50(a) permits a directed verdict when the evidence is legally insufficient to take the case to the jury.

Little v. Omega Meats I, Inc. · filed 2005-07-19Rule 50(a)

A motion for directed verdict under G.S. 1A-1, Rule 50(a) tests the legal sufficiency of the evidence to take the case to the jury.

Rule 50 requires a court deciding a directed verdict motion to view the evidence in the nonmovant’s favor and determine whether it is sufficient to submit to the jury.

Hill v. Taylor · filed 2005-11-15Rule 50

When ruling on a motion for a directed verdict, a trial court must “consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-movant, and determine whether the evidence is sufficient as a matter of law to be submitted to the jury.”

A defendant waives a directed verdict motion made at the close of the plaintiff’s evidence by presenting evidence.

Boggess v. Spencer · filed 2005-10-04Rule 50

Defendants waived their motion for directed verdict at the close of plaintiffs’ evidence by presenting evidence.

Rule 50 requires a negligence claim to reach the jury when the evidence permits jurors to find a defendant negligent, even without direct evidence of how the defendant drove.

Campbell v. Ingram · filed 2006-11-21Rule 50

It follows that the evidence in this case is sufficient to allow jurors to decide whether either or both of the drivers of the two cars involved in the collision in this matter were negligent.

Under Rule 50(a), a directed verdict is improper when the evidence, viewed in the nonmovant's favor, is sufficient to submit the issue to the jury.

McCauley v. Thomas · filed 2015-07-07Rule 50(a)

Viewing the above evidence and accompanying inferences in the light most favorable to plaintiff, we hold the evidence was sufficient in this case to have gone to the jury. Instead, the trial court invaded the province of the jury and determined the facts and granted defendant's motion for a directed verdict. This was error.

Rule 50(a) permits a directed verdict when the nonmoving party cannot recover under any reasonable view of the evidence.

Villazon v. Osborne · filed 2025-10-01Rule 50(a)

“[I]t appears, as a matter of law, that [Defendants] cannot recover upon any view of the facts which the evidence reasonably tends to establish” even when viewed in the light most favorable to them. Merrick, 143 N.C. App. at 661, 548 S.E.2d at 175 (citation omitted). Therefore, the trial court did not err by granting Plaintiff’s motion for directed verdict on the issue of the Residential Purpose Covenant.

Rule 50 permits a directed verdict only when the evidence cannot support a jury verdict for the nonmoving party.

Maraman v. Cooper Steel Fabricators · filed 2001-11-06Rule 50(a)

A directed verdict is properly granted where it appears, as a matter of law, that the nonmoving party cannot recover upon any view of the facts which the evidence reasonably tends to establish.

Rule 56(c) directs the court to grant summary judgment when the record shows no genuine issue of material fact and a party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Roten v. State · filed 1970-07-15Rule 56(c)

G.S. 1A-1, Rule 56(c), Rules of Civil Procedure, establishes the procedure to be followed by the court when considering a motion for summary judgment as follows: “The judgment sought shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that any party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” In the instant case we hold that the court properly allowed the defendant’s motion for a summary judgment.

Rule 56(c) permits summary judgment when the defendant admits the contract and nonpayment and the further answer presents no valid defense.

Williford v. Williford · filed 1971-02-24Rule 56(c)

Defendant having admitted the contract and his failure to pay, plaintiff is entitled to summary judgment unless the facts alleged in the further answer constitute a valid defense. G. S. 1A-1, Rule 56 (c). We agree with the trial judge that they do not.

Rule 56 permits partial summary judgment when the submitted materials show no genuine issue of material fact and entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.

Atkinson v. Wilkerson · filed 1971-03-31Rule 56

Summary judgment is appropriate “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that any party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure, G.S. 1A-1, Rule 56. Therefore, it must appear from the items submitted in support of plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment that the plaintiff was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Rule 56(c) permits summary judgment when the record shows no genuine issue of material fact and a party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Hoover v. Gaston Memorial Hospital, Inc. · filed 1971-04-28Rule 56(c)

Summary judgment is appropriate if “the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that any party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” G.S. 1A-1, Rule 56(c). ... In the absence of a showing that there was a genuine issue as to any material fact, summary judgment was appropriate.

Rule 56(c) permits summary judgment when the record shows no genuine issue of material fact and a party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Moore v. Bryson · filed 1971-04-28Rule 56(c)

Summary judgment is appropriate if "the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that any party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” G.S. 1A-1, Rule 56(c). ... No disability having been alleged or shown, the action was barred by the statute of limitations at the time it was commenced, and hence the motion for summary judgment was properly granted.

Rule 56(e) bars consideration of hearsay statements in affidavits on a motion for summary judgment.

Patterson Ex Rel. Jones v. Reid · filed 1970-12-16Rule 56(e)

Turning to plaintiff’s affidavits, we find that some of the statements therein are based on hearsay. These would not be admissible in evidence and should not be considered in passing on the motion for summary judgment. Rule 56 (e).

Rule 56(e) requires a party opposing a supported summary judgment motion to present specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial; bare allegations in a complaint are insufficient.

Alltop v. JC PENNEY COMPANY · filed 1971-03-31Rule 56(e)

The defendant’s motion for summary judgment was supported by the deposition of the plaintiff. But plaintiff offered nothing to bolster the bare allegations of her complaint. G.S. 1A-1, Rule 56 (e), provides in part: ... “. . . When a motion for summary judgment is made and supported as provided in this rule, an adverse party may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of his pleading, but his response, by affidavits or as otherwise provided in this rule, must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. If he does not so respond, summary judgment, if appropriate, shall be entered against him.” ... Hence, we hold that the entry of summary judgment was proper since there appears to be no genuine issue as to any material fact.

Under Rule 56(e), unsupported allegations in a counterclaim do not overcome a supported motion for summary judgment.

Blackmon v. Valley Decorating Co. · filed 1971-04-28Rule 56(e)

The unsupported allegations in the counterclaim are not sufficient to overcome the motion for summary judgment.

Rule 56(c) permits summary judgment only when the record shows no genuine issue of material fact and a party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Moore v. Bryson · filed 1971-05-26Rule 56(c)

It is proper only when "the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that any party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." G.S. § 1A-1, Rule 56(c).

Rule 56(c) permits summary judgment when the record shows no genuine issue of material fact and a party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Williams v. Lewis · filed 1971-05-26Rule 56(c)

Summary judgment is appropriate if “the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that any party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” G.S. 1A-1, Rule 56(c).

Rule 56(e) requires a party opposing a properly supported summary judgment motion to show a genuine issue for trial rather than rely on allegations or denials in a pleading.

Coakley v. Ford Motor Company · filed 1971-07-14Rule 56(e)

In resistance to a motion for summary judgment, properly supported, the party against whom the motion is made may not rest upon the allegations or denials of his pleading, but must demonstrate that there is a genuine issue for trial. G.S. 1A-1, Rule 56(e).

Rule 56 permits summary judgment when no genuine issue of material fact is presented.

Adams v. STATE CAPITAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY · filed 1971-07-14Rule 56

There was no dispute as to the facts involved, and since there was not presented any genuine issue as to any material fact, summary judgment was the correct procedure. G.S. 1A-1, Rule 56.

Rule 56 permits summary judgment when the record shows no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Peaseley v. VIRGINIA IRON, COAL AND COKE COMPANY · filed 1971-08-18

Summary judgment is proper if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Rule 56 requires a plaintiff opposing a supported summary judgment motion to present specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial, rather than rely on the complaint’s allegations.

Jarrell v. Samsonite Corporation · filed 1971-11-17Rule 56

If the defendant moving for summary judgment successfully carries his burden of proof, the plaintiff may not rely on the bare allegations of his complaint to establish triable issues of fact, but must, by affidavits or otherwise, set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.

Rule 56(c) permits summary judgment when the record shows no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Bradley v. Lewis Motors, Inc. · filed 1971-11-17Rule 56(c)

Summary judgment is proper when the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Rule 56 allows a claimant to obtain summary judgment when the record shows no genuine issue of material fact and the claimant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Clear Fir Sales Co. v. Carolina Plywood Distributors, Inc. · filed 1972-01-12Rule 56(a), (c)

Summary judgment is available to a claimant as well as to a defendant, G.S. 1A-1, Rule 56(a), and it must be rendered forthwith upon his motion if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that claimant is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.

Rule 56(c) permits summary judgment when the record shows no genuine issue of material fact and a party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Kessing v. National Mortgage Corporation · filed 1971-05-12Rule 56(c)

Procedurally, the question in the instant case is reduced to whether or not the pleadings, together with the affidavit and oral testimony of the parties, show there is any genuine issue as to any material fact, and whether any party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.

Rule 56(c) requires a summary judgment motion to be served at least 10 days before the hearing.

Ketner v. Rouzer · filed 1971-06-23Rule 56(c)

In this case defendants’ motion for summary judgment was not served on plaintiff “at least 10 days before the time fixed for the hearing” as required by Rule 56 (c).

Rule 56(c) requires at least 10 days’ notice before a summary judgment hearing, and failure to follow Rule 56’s procedure makes the judgment erroneous.

Britt v. Allen · filed 1971-09-15(c)

were not given at least 10 days’ notice before the time fixed for the hearing as required by Rule 56 (c). Since the procedure prescribed by Rule 56 was not followed, the judgment appealed from is erroneous.

Rule 56(e) requires summary judgment affidavits offering medical opinions to establish that the affiants are competent to give those opinions.

Lineberger v. Colonial Life & Accident Insurance Co. · filed 1971-08-04Rule 56(e)

The letters in question contain various opinions which the physicians would be competent to relate in court only if they first were established to be medical experts.

Rule 56(e) requires a party opposing a supported summary judgment motion to provide specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial; reliance on pleadings or an attorney’s belief that evidence may be offered at trial is insufficient.

Schoolfield v. Collins · filed 1971-10-05Rule 56(e)

The affidavit of counsel adds no competent evidence. ... In our opinion the appealing respondent’s answers to the interrogatories reveal that no genuine issue as to a material fact exists; and further that upon the facts established petitioner was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Under Rule 56, a court must consider a verified complaint on file when deciding whether the moving party has shown that summary judgment is warranted.

Brevard v. Barkley · filed 1971-11-17Rule 56

The plaintiff did not respond to the motion for summary judgment by affidavit or otherwise as provided by Rule 56; however, the plaintiff’s verified complaint was on file and should have been considered by the court in determining whether the defendant had carried the burden of showing the lack of a genuine issue of material fact and whether the defendant was entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.

Rule 56(c) permits summary judgment when the pleadings or proof disclose no cause of action or defense.

Nat Harrison Associates, Inc. v. North Carolina State Ports Authority · filed 1972-01-14Rule 56(c)

Where the pleadings or proof disclose that no cause of action or defense exists, a summary judgment may be granted.

Rule 56 permits summary judgment when no material fact is genuinely disputed and a party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Mattox v. State · filed 1972-02-09Rule 56

Procedurally, the question in the instant case is reduced to whether or not the pleadings, together with the depositions and affidavit, show there is any genuine issue as to any material fact and whether any party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.

Rule 56(c) permits the court to consider pleadings, interrogatory answers, admissions, and affidavits on summary judgment and to enter partial summary judgment when only damages remain in dispute.

Price v. Bunn · filed 1972-03-29Rule 56(c)

The motion for summary judgment permitted the trial judge, in rendering his ruling on the motion, to consider the pleadings, answers to interrogatories and admission on file, together with the affidavit offered. G.S. 1A-1, Rule 56(c). The trial judge correctly found from the evidence offered that there was no genuine issue as to any material fact except damages; therefore, the court properly entered a partial summary judgment, leaving that issue for later jury determination.

Rule 56(c) permits summary judgment when no genuine issue of material fact remains and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Walton v. Meir · filed 1972-04-26Rule 56(c)

We hold that Judge Braswell’s statement of the material facts is based on the uncontroverted evidence and find no error in his conclusion that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact in this case for a jury to determine and, therefore, that the Meirs are entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.

Rule 56 requires the party seeking summary judgment to show that no genuine issue of material fact remains.

Oliver v. Ernul · filed 1972-05-24

Even if we treat the motion as one for summary judgment, it is our opinion that plaintiffs have failed to show that no genuine issue as to any material fact remains.

Rule 56(c) permits summary judgment when there is no genuine issue of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Riggins v. County of Mecklenburg · filed 1972-05-24Rule 56(c)

We think plaintiff failed to show actionable negligence on the part of defendant, therefore, there was “no genuine issue as to any material fact” and defendant was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Rule 56(e) allows a properly verified pleading meeting affidavit requirements to show specific facts establishing a genuine issue for trial.

Schoolfield v. Collins · filed 1972-06-16(e)

While the object of the last two sentences of Rule 56(e) is to pierce general allegations in the non-movant’s pleadings, Rule 56(e) does not deny that a properly verified pleading which meets all the requirements for affidavits may effectively “set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.”

Rule 56(c) requires the court to determine whether a genuine issue of material fact exists, without deciding disputed facts; an immaterial factual question does not prevent summary judgment.

Keith v. G. D. Reddick, Inc. · filed 1972-06-28Rule 56(c)

The standard fixed by the rule does not contemplate that the court is to decide an issue of fact, but rather it impels the court to determine whether a real issue of fact exists. A question of fact which is immaterial does not preclude summary judgment.

Rule 56(c) requires a genuine issue of material fact to defeat summary judgment; a factual dispute alone is insufficient.

Johnston County Tuberculosis Ass'n v. North Carolina Tuberculosis & Respiratory Disease Ass'n · filed 1972-08-02Rule 56(c)

Whether there is a genuine issue of fact is not the question. The question is whether the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is a genuine issue as to any material fact. G.S. 1A-1, Rule 56(c).

Rule 56 allows judgment as a matter of law when the record establishes all material facts and leaves no genuine factual issue.

University of North Carolina v. Town of Carrboro · filed 1972-08-02

The pleadings, exhibits, and affidavits show there is no genuine issue as to the amount and price of water and electric service delivered by the plaintiff and accepted by the defendant for the billing period covered by statements mailed 18 August 1970 and 21 August 1970, and that $90.65 was credited to the account. Therefore, since all of the material facts are established by the record, the one question presented on this appeal is whether, on such facts, the University is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Either party may move for summary judgment in a declaratory judgment action when summary judgment is otherwise proper.

Blades v. City of Raleigh · filed 1972-03-15Rules 56(a), 56(b), and 57

A summary judgment may be entered, when otherwise proper, upon the motion of either the plaintiff, Rule 56 (a), or the defendant, Rule 56(b), in an action for a declaratory judgment.

Rule 56(e) excludes from summary judgment consideration statements about causation that lack personal knowledge or a showing that the witness is competent to give the opinion.

Peterson v. Winn-Dixie of Raleigh, Inc. · filed 1972-03-29Rule 56(e)

It seems obvious that plaintiff’s affidavit (in the form of her deposition in this case) was not made on personal knowledge when she states’ why she thinks the drinks fell. Also, it seems obvious that plaintiff has not affirmatively shown that she is competent to give an opinion as to why the drinks fell. These phases of her affidavit cannot be considered in her opposition to summary judgment, because they do not comply with the rules.

Rule 56(e) does not require every affidavit offered at a summary judgment hearing to be attached to and served with the motion.

Millsaps v. WILKES CONTRACTING COMPANY · filed 1972-05-24Rule 56(e)

We do not think the quoted sentence or any part of Rule 56(e) has the effect of requiring that all affidavits offered at the hearing on a motion for summary judgment be attached to and served with the motion.

Rule 56(e) requires a plaintiff to produce evidence of a genuine issue for trial when the defendant supports its summary judgment motion with evidence negating liability.

Rivenbark v. Atlantic States Construction Co. · filed 1972-05-24Rule 56(e)

Therefore based on the evidence presented by Atlantic States to support its motion showing that Atlantic States had exerted no control or authority over the manner in which the work was performed by Blackmon, the subcontractor, the burden shifted to plaintiff to produce evidence which would present a genuine issue for trial.

Rule 56(e) requires a party opposing a supported summary judgment motion to present specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial; the complaint alone is insufficient.

First Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n. v. Branch Banking & Trust Co. · filed 1972-08-01Rule 56(e)

Plaintiff presented nothing at the hearing on the motion other than the complaint. Under G.S. 1A-1, Rule 56 (e) and decisions interpreting the statute, we hold that this was not sufficient to establish a triable issue of fact.

A verified complaint may serve as an affidavit under Rule 56(e) only if it is based on personal knowledge, states admissible facts, and shows the complainant is competent to testify.

Page v. Sloan · filed 1972-07-31Rule 56(e)

A verified complaint may be treated as an affidavit if it (1) is made on personal knowledge, (2) sets forth such facts as would be admissible in evidence, and (3) shows affirmatively that the affiant is competent to testify to the matters stated therein.

Rule 56(c) does not permit summary judgment when the pleadings and affidavit show a genuine issue of material fact.

Liberty Loan Corp. of North Charlotte v. Miller · filed 1972-08-23Rule 56(c)

We hold that the pleadings and affidavit clearly show the existence of a genuine issue of material fact, that defendant was not entitled to judgment as a matter of law, and that summary judgment was improperly entered.

Rule 56 does not permit summary judgment when a material fact remains disputed and resolving it would require a trial by affidavits.

Wall v. Flack · filed 1972-08-23

To resolve the issue of when this accident occurred would have required a “trial by affidavits” at hearing on the motion for summary judgment which is clearly impermissible.

Rule 56 permits summary judgment when stipulated facts show no genuine issue of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Jernigan v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance · filed 1972-08-30Rule 56

The question thus presented on appeal is whether the pleadings and stipulations of the parties show there is a genuine issue as to any material fact and whether any party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. G.S. 1A-1, Rule 56. ... The detailed stipulation of facts made by the parties shows clearly there was no genuine issue as to any material fact; therefore, the question presented to the trial judge by Lumbermen’s motion for summary judgment was whether, under the stipulated facts, it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. We hold that it was.

Rule 56 requires a court hearing a summary judgment motion to determine whether a genuine issue of material fact exists, rather than decide an issue of fact.

Graham v. Northwestern Bank · filed 1972-10-25Rule 56

On the hearing of a motion for summary judgment, it is not the duty of the court to decide an issue of fact but rather to determine whether a genuine issue as to any material fact exists.

Rule 56(c) allows summary judgment when no genuine issue of material fact remains and the effect of undisputed facts is a question of law.

McNair v. Boyette · filed 1972-11-15Rule 56(c)

There was no “genuine issue as to any material fact.” The effect of the undisputed facts was a question of law for the court to determine.

Rule 56 permits summary judgment only when the moving party is clearly entitled to it.

Houck v. Overcash · filed 1973-02-02Rule 56

In our view, the writing attached to defendant’s motion for summary judgment was sufficient to require the denial thereof. Summary judgment should be granted only when the movant is clearly entitled thereto.

Rule 56(e) requires a party opposing a supported summary judgment motion to present specific facts; a general denial is insufficient.

Patrick v. Hurdle · filed 1972-08-30Rule 56(e)

We think that under the circumstances, this general denial was entitled to no more weight than if it had been contained in defendant’s answer in response to allegations in the complaint. “When a motion for summary judgment is made and supported ... , an adverse party may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of his pleading, but his response, by affidavits or as otherwise provided in this rule, must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.”

Rule 56(e) requires summary judgment affidavits to set forth facts admissible in evidence; material containing inadmissible facts should not be considered.

Borden, Inc. v. Brower · filed 1973-03-06Rule 56(e)

Affidavits filed in support of or in opposition to a motion for summary judgment “shall set forth such facts as would be admissible in evidence.” G.S. 1A-1, Rule 56(e). The converse of this requirement is that affidavits or other material offered which set forth facts which would not be admissible in evidence should not be considered when passing on the motion for summary judgment. In the present case we hold, as did the trial court, that the material facts set forth in defendant’s affidavits were inadmissible in evidence because of the parol evidence rule.

Rule 6(e) extends the minimum notice period for a summary judgment hearing from 10 to 13 days when notice is served by mail.

PLANTERS NATIONAL BANK & TRUST COMPANY v. Rush · filed 1973-03-14Rule 6(e)

Rule 6(e), in effect, extends the minimum 10 day notice period to 13 days when the notice is by mail.

Rule 56 permits summary judgment when the plaintiff cannot recover even if the plaintiff's claimed facts are taken as true.

Doggett v. Welborn · filed 1973-04-25Rule 56

Summary judgment is proper when it appears that even if the facts as claimed by plaintiff are taken as true, there can be no recovery.

Rule 56 does not permit summary judgment when genuine triable issues of material fact remain.

Henry v. Henry · filed 1973-04-25Rule 56

It is manifest from the record before us that there are genuine triable issues of material fact as to plaintiff’s claim and as to defendant’s counterclaim. The trial judge erred in dismissing plaintiff’s complaint and in entering summary judgment awarding defendant $207.11 on his counterclaim. G.S. 1A-1, Rule 56.

Rule 56(c) permits summary judgment only when no genuine issue of material fact exists and a party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Newman Bros. v. Wind King Manufacturing Co. · filed 1973-07-11Rule 56(c)

Summary judgment is proper only where there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and a party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. G.S. 1A-1, Rule 56(c). Therefore, it was error for the trial judge to enter summary judgment in this case, dismissing the plaintiff’s claim.

Rule 56 makes summary judgment inappropriate when a genuine issue of fact remains.

Williams v. North Carolina State Board of Education · filed 1974-02-01Rule 56(b)

If there is a genuine issue of fact, summary judgment is inappropriate.

Rule 56 permits summary judgment only when the record shows no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Stonestreet v. Compton Motors, Inc. · filed 1973-06-27Rule 56

Summary judgment is proper only when the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Rule 56(c) treats a defendant’s denial of an alleged debt as a genuine issue of material fact unless the defendant’s admissions clearly show the denial is baseless.

Commercial Credit Corporation v. McCorkle · filed 1973-09-12Rule 56(c)

Where a defendant denies the existence of the debt alleged, unless admissions by defendant clearly show- that his denial of the debt is utterly baseless in fact, defendant’s denial raises a genuine issue as to a material fact.

Rule 56(c) permits summary judgment when no genuine issue of material fact exists and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Rossman v. New York Life Insurance · filed 1973-10-24Rule 56(c)

There being no genuine issue as to any material fact, the question to be resolved on this appeal is whether defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. G.S. 1A-1, Rule 56 (c), Rules of Civil Procedure. ... The defendant was entitled to judgment as a matter of law which is Affirmed.

Rule 56(e) requires opposition affidavits to state admissible facts; admissible evidence that raises a genuine issue of material fact precludes summary judgment.

BORDEN, INCORPORATED v. Brower · filed 1973-10-10Rule 56(e)

Affidavits filed in opposition to a motion for summary judgment "shall set forth such facts as would be admissible in evidence." G.S. § 1A-1, Rule 56(e). ... Such evidence is sufficient to raise a genuine issue as to a material fact to be determined at trial.

Rule 56(c) permits summary judgment when the record shows no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Ryals v. Barefoot · filed 1973-10-10Rule 56(c)

Summary judgment is proper when the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Rule 56(c) permits summary judgment against the moving party when appropriate, but it was inappropriate where the opposing parties filed no motion and the hearing was solely on the moving party’s motion.

Hinson v. Jefferson · filed 1973-12-12Rule 56(c)

Since defendants did not file a motion for summary judgment, the cause was heard solely on plaintiff’s motion. While G.S. 1A-1, Rule 56(c) provides that “ [s] ummary judgment, when appropriate, may be rendered against the moving party,” we think it was not appropriate in this case.

Rule 56 does not permit a court to grant summary judgment through a motion to limit discovery without a proper hearing.

George W. Shipp Travel Agency, Inc. v. Dunn · filed 1974-02-20Rule 56

In a motion for an order merely limiting the scope of discovery by declaring certain interrogatories too broad and burdensome to be answered, it is improper for a trial court to make findings of fact and conclusions of law which are not limited to the nature of the particular motion before the trial court at that time, and which in essence grant summary judgment without a proper hearing. G.S. 1A-1, Rule 56.

Rule 56(c) does not allow a speculative or conjectural inference of negligence to defeat summary judgment.

Norfolk v. Werner Industries, Inc. · filed 1974-03-20(c)

The matter contained in the affidavit does not serve to raise an inference of negligence on defendant’s part which must be submitted to a jury, but rather any possible inference of negligence derived from the affidavit would be nothing more than the product of speculation or conjecture and not sufficient to avoid summary judgment.

Rule 56(c) permits summary judgment when the record shows no genuine issue of material fact and a party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Jenkins v. Coombs · filed 1974-06-05Rule 56(c)

Summary judgment is appropriate if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that any party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. G.S. 1A-1, Rule 56(c).

Summary judgment is proper when the record shows no genuine issue of material fact and a party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Pilot Freight Carriers, Inc. v. David G. Allen Co., Inc. · filed 1974-07-17Rule 56(c)

Summary judgment is the proper procedure if examination of the pleadings, interrogatories, affidavits, etc., discloses that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that any party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Rule 56(e) requires a party opposing a supported summary judgment motion to set forth specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial rather than relying on the pleadings alone.

Harrell v. City of Winston-Salem · filed 1974-07-17Rule 56(e)

A careful examination of the pleadings filed in this case in conjunction with the affidavit filed by defendant in support of its motion for summary judgment, coupled with the absence of the filing of any counter-affidavits by plaintiffs, leads us to the conclusion that Judge Wood was correct in finding no genuine issue as to any material fact.

Rule 56 permits summary judgment when the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law and the opposing evidence raises no genuine issue of material fact.

Corbin v. Langdon · filed 1974-09-18Rule 56(b)

Here defendant relied on the pleadings and the contract itself and was entitled to summary judgment, nothing else appearing. Plaintiff’s affidavits' in opposition did not negate defendant’s showing; but, on the contrary.,' buttressed defendant’s position that there is no genuine issue as-to any material fact.

Rule 56(c) permits summary judgment only when the record shows no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Carson v. Cloninger · filed 1974-11-20Rule 56(c)

Summary judgment is proper only when the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that a party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. G.S. 1A-1, Rule 56(c). When motion for summary judgment is made, the court must look at the record in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion.

Rule 6(d) requires affidavits supporting a summary judgment motion to be served with the motion.

Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company v. Chantos · filed 1974-03-20Rule 6(d)

However, Rule 6(d) specifically provides: “When a motion is supported by affidavit, the affidavit shall be served with the motion.” This provision of Rule 6(d) applies to affidavits in support of a Rule 56 motion for summary judgment.

Rule 56(c) permits summary judgment against the moving party when appropriate.

Bland v. Bland · filed 1974-04-03Rule 56(c)

G.S. 1A-1, Rule 56 (c) provides, among other things, that summary judgment, when appropriate, may be rendered against the moving party. Under the facts in this case, we hold that the rendition of summary judgment against the moving party, to the extent hereinafter set forth, was appropriate.

A trial court errs by granting summary judgment on its own motion when a factual dispute remains unresolved.

Crews v. Taylor · filed 1974-04-17Rule 56(b)

The respondent in this matter did not move for summary judgment or judgment on the pleadings. ... G.S. 1A-1, Rule 56(b). Eather, the trial judge granted such on his own motion. This practice is not to be commended and was erroneous as applied to the situation in question. The petitioners denied any indebtedness existed between Eoscoe T. Taylor, Jr., and the estate. This was a factual question to be answered appropriately.

Rule 56(e) requires a party opposing summary judgment to set forth specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial; relying on the pleadings alone is insufficient.

Hearne v. Smith · filed 1974-09-18Rule 56(e)

Pursuant to G.S. 1A-1, Rule 56 (e), “an adverse party may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of his pleading” and his response “must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” If the adverse party fails to do so, summary judgment shall be entered against him.

Once the summary judgment movant makes an initial showing, Rule 56(e) requires the opposing party to show a genuine issue for trial or provide an excuse under Rule 56(f).

Norfolk & Western Railway Co. v. Werner Industries, Inc. · filed 1974-11-26Rule 56(e)

The burden consequently shifts to plaintiff, who opposed the motion for summary judgment, to show “that there is a genuine issue for trial” as required under Rule 56(e), or to provide an excuse for not doing so under Rule 56 (f).

The party moving for summary judgment must show that no triable issue exists; the court scrutinizes the movant’s papers and views the opposing party’s papers indulgently.

Zimmerman v. Hogg & Allen, Professional Ass'n · filed 1974-11-26Rule 56(c)

The moving party has the burden of establishing the absence of any triable issue, and the Court in considering the motion carefully scrutinizes the papers of the moving party and, on the whole, regards those of the opposing party with indulgence.

Rule 56 requires the trial judge to consider the pleadings, affidavits, interrogatories, deposition, and admissions before deciding summary judgment.

Estate of Loftin v. Loftin · filed 1974-10-10Rule 56

In instant case, there was a motion for summary judgment pursuant to G.S. 1A-1, Rule 56, which made it incumbent upon the trial judge to consider the pleadings, affidavits, interrogatories, deposition and admissions which were before him.

Rule 56(c) permits summary judgment when no genuine issue of material fact exists and a party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Nationwide Mutual Insurance v. Chantos · filed 1975-05-07(c)

The rule does not contemplate that the court is to decide an issue of fact, but rather it impels the court to determine whether a real issue of fact exists.

Rule 56 permits summary judgment when the record shows no genuine issue of material fact and a party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Newton v. Williams · filed 1975-05-07

G.S. 1A-1, Rule 56, provides for the rendition of summary judgment “. . . if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that any party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. . . .”

Rule 56(e) requires a party opposing a supported summary judgment motion to present specific facts rather than rely on allegations in the complaint.

Everett Davenport Trading v. Davenport · filed 1975-05-07Rule 56(e)

The plaintiff may not rely on the bare allegations of his complaint.

Rule 56(e) requires a party opposing summary judgment to show a genuine factual issue rather than rest on a general denial.

Hill Truck Rentals, Inc. v. Hubler Rentals, Inc. · filed 1975-06-04Rule 56(e)

When defendant did not respond to the motion for summary judgment, by affidavits or otherwise, but rested on the general denial in its answer as to the amount of rent due, it failed to show that a genuine issue existed as to rent due plaintiff for vehicle number 8100. G.S. 1A-1, Rule 56(e).

Rule 56(c) permits summary judgment against the moving party when appropriate, but judgment requires no genuine issue of material fact and entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.

Dickerson, Inc. v. Board of Transportation · filed 1975-06-18Rule 56(c)

Summary judgment, when appropriate, may be rendered against the moving party. G.S. 1A-1, Rule 56(c). ... When so considered, did the evidentiary material show that there was no genuine issue of material fact and that defendant was entitled to judgment as a matter of law? We think not.

Rule 56(c) requires the party moving for summary judgment to establish that no genuine issue of material fact remains.

Austin v. Wilder · filed 1975-06-18Rule 56(c)

Entry of summary judgment is proper “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that any party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” G.S. 1A-1, Rule 56(c). ... Applying this test, we find that plaintiff as movant has failed to carry the burden of establishing the lack of a genuine issue of material fact in this case.

Rule 56(c) requires the summary judgment movant to show that no genuine issue of material fact exists and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Yount v. Lowe · filed 1975-06-26Rule 56(c)

The rule itself conditions rendition of summary judgment on a showing by the movant (1) that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact, and (2) that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.