N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1

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.

Beavers v. McMican · filed 2022-08-16Rule 56(c)

Rule 56(c) of our Rules of Civil Procedure provides that 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.”

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

Neeley v. Fields · filed 2022-10-18Rule 56(c)

Even where all inferences of fact are drawn “against the movant and in favor of the party opposing the motion,” Caldwell, 288 N.C. at 378, 218 S.E.2d at 381, “there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and [the Defendants were] entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” N.C.G.S. § 1A-1, Rule 56(c) (2021). As the general warranty deed excluded recorded easements and the landscape easement was an easement of record within the chain of title at the time of drafting and recording, Defendants did not breach a duty to Neeley, and summary judgment for Defendants was proper.

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.

Kelly v. Metro. Life Ins. Co. · filed 2022-11-14Rule 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.” N.C.G.S. § 1A-1, Rule 56(c).

Rule 56(c) permits summary judgment for a party when the undisputed facts and applicable law establish that the party is entitled to judgment.

MidFirst Bank v. Brown · filed 2022-12-06Rule 56(c)

Plaintiff has therefore failed to meet its burden for entry of summary judgment in its favor. Consequently, because the undisputed facts and applicable law defeat Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants, Defendants are entitled to entry of summary judgment in their favor.

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.

Brown v. Onslow Bay Marine Grp., LLC · filed 2022-12-12(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.” N.C.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.

Merrell v. Smith · filed 2022-12-13Rule 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.” N.C.G.S. § 1A-1, Rule 56(c).

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

Radiator Specialty Co. v. Arrowood Indem. Co. · filed 2022-12-16Rule 56(c)

Summary judgment is appropriate where there is no genuine issue of material fact and the movant is 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.

Merrell v. Smith · filed 2023-01-11Rule 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.”

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.

Abbott v. Abernathy · filed 2023-02-07Rule 56(c)

A trial court properly grants 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.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 56(c).

Rule 56(c) does not permit summary judgment when the evidence, viewed in the nonmoving party’s favor, leaves a genuine factual dispute over contributory negligence.

Cullen v. Logan Developers · filed 2023-05-16Rule 56(c)

We must view the evidence in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, and these statements create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Plaintiff knew the area remained unsafe such that she was negligent in failing to look out for her safety while walking.

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.

Moseley v. Hendricks · filed 2024-02-06Rule 56(c)

Further, under Rule 56(c) of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure, such judgment is appropriate only “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file . . . show 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(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.

Terry v. Pub. Serv. Co. of N.C. · filed 2024-03-22Rule 56(c)

Without a showing of notice or defendant’s knowledge, plaintiff cannot maintain an action for negligence because defendant’s duty under N.C.G.S. § 42-42 had not yet arisen. The “pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file . . . show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that [defendant] is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” N.C.G.S. § 1A-1, Rule 56(c).

Rule 56(c) permits summary judgment when the evidence fails to raise a genuine issue of material fact on the claims.

Halikierra Cmty. Servs. LLC v. N.C. Dep't of Health & Hum. Servs. · filed 2024-03-22Rule 56(c)

We hold that the trial court properly granted summary judgment for DHHS because Halikierra’s evidentiary forecast failed to disclose any genuine issues of material fact in support of its claims.

Rule 56 permits summary judgment when the evidence, viewed in the nonmoving party’s favor, cannot support an essential element of that party’s claim.

Beavers v. McMican · filed 2024-03-22Rule 56(c)

But even taking this evidence in the light most favorable to Mr. Beavers, as is required under our summary judgment standard, Cummings, 379 N.C. at 358, this evidence is insufficient to survive summary judgment because there is no pre-separation evidence that Mr. John McMican is “Bestie,” “Dustin,” or any other iteration of the man with whom Mrs. Beavers had an affair before she and Mr. Beavers separated. See N.C.G.S. § 1A-1, Rule 56.

Rule 56 permits summary judgment when the plaintiff lacks standing to bring suit.

Edwards v. Town of Louisburg · filed 2023-08-15Rule 56(c)

Under our precedent, “[s]ummary judgment is proper if the plaintiff lacks standing to bring suit.” Morris v. Thomas, 161 N.C. App. 680, 683, 589 S.E.2d 419, 421 (2003) (citation omitted).

Rule 56 permits summary judgment before a defendant files an answer when the defendant has had a full opportunity to present defenses and evidence of a material factual dispute.

Silwal v. Lenoir · filed 2024-02-06Rule 56

Defendant, therefore, had a full opportunity “to prepare defenses and to come forward with material questions of fact with which to defeat the motion for summary judgment[,]” id. at 261, so the trial court did not err by ruling on Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment without permitting Defendant to file pleadings.

Rule 56(c) permits summary judgment despite a factual dispute when that dispute is immaterial to the outcome.

Williams v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Sch. Bd. of Educ. · filed 2024-02-20Rule 56(c)

Any dispute over the label of the bus is immaterial because if the bus was something other than a school bus, like an activity bus, the Commission lacked jurisdiction to hear this case.

Rule 56(c) requires courts to view the evidence favorably to the nonmoving party, but does not require them to disregard that party’s unfavorable testimony.

Cullen v. Logan Developers, Inc. · filed 2024-08-23Rule 56(c)

The summary judgment standard requires us to examine the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff; it does not oblige us to ignore the parts of plaintiff’s testimony that torpedo her argument.

At summary judgment, allegations in a verified complaint made upon information and belief receive no weight.

Saad v. Town of Surf City · filed 2024-12-17Rule 56

Therefore, in recounting the facts, we do not give weight to any allegation in Mr. Saad’s complaint made “upon information and belief.”

Summary judgment is improper when the evidence raises a genuine issue of material fact about gross negligence for a jury to decide.

Higgins v. Mendoza · filed 2025-01-15Rule 56(c)

The evidence and testimony before the trial court indicates at minimum a genuine issue of material fact as to whether defendant Romero’s actions rise to the level of gross negligence. Defendant Romero engaged in a chase at an unnecessarily high speed with reckless disregard for the safety of Michael, his student intern passenger. It should be for the jury to determine whether defendant Romero’s actions were needless or manifested a reckless indifference to the rights of Michael. Accordingly, it was improper for the trial court to grant summary judgment in defendant Romero’s favor, and we reverse the order and remand for further proceedings.

Rule 56(e) requires a party opposing summary judgment to set forth specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial; the party cannot rely on allegations or denials in its pleadings.

James H.Q. Davis Tr. v. JHD Props., LLC · filed 2025-01-31Rule 56(e)

The responding party may not “rest upon the mere allegations or denials” in the pleadings, and its response “must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” N.C.G.S. § 1A-1, Rule 56(e).

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.

Epes Logistics Servs., Inc. v. De Piante · filed 2025-03-11Rule 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.” N.C.G.S. § 1A-1, Rule 56(c).

A denial of summary judgment is not reviewable on appeal after the case proceeds to trial and final judgment on the merits.

N.C. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. Young · filed 2025-05-07

Plaintiff’s cross-appeal on a denial of summary judgment is not properly before this Court.

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.

Hwang v. Cairns · filed 2025-05-23Rule 56(c)

Summary judgment is appropriate 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.” N.C.G.S. § 1A-1, Rule 56(c) (2023).

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

Mooney v. NCDHHS, Div. of Soc. Servs., Child Support Enforcement Sec. · filed 2025-06-04Rule 56(c)

Thus, no genuine issue as to any material fact exists regarding the amount of debt Petitioner owed Respondent and whether it met the threshold for interception of his tax refunds and administrative offset. Therefore, the ALJ properly granted summary judgment for Respondent.

Rule 56 permits summary judgment in a negligence action when the evidence does not support a finding of negligence.

Fenderson v. Davidson Day Sch. · filed 2025-07-02(c)

Based on the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, we conclude no facts support negligence under the reasonable and prudent person standard.

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.

Armistead v. Shaw · filed 2025-08-06Rule 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.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 56(c) (2023).

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

Barefoot v. Durham Cnty. · filed 2025-08-20Rule 56(c)

However, given there is no issue of material fact, summary judgment is the proper disposition. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 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.

Zhang v. Zhang · filed 2025-09-17Rule 56(c)

Summary judgment is appropriate 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.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 56(c) (2023).

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

Skoutelis v. Greasy Branch Water Corp. · filed 2025-10-15Rule 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 any party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” N.C.G.S. § 1A-1, Rule 56(c) (2025).

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.

Rfactr, Inc. v. McDowell · filed 2025-10-16Rule 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.” N.C.G.S. § 1A-1, Rule 56(c).

Rule 56(c) permits summary judgment in a negligence action when undisputed evidence leaves no genuine issue of material fact on foreseeability.

Long v. Fowler · filed 2025-10-17Rule 56(c)

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 judgment as a matter of law.” N.C.G.S. § 1A-1, Rule 56(c) (2023). ... The uncontradicted evidence demonstrates this accident resulted from exactly such an unforeseeable sequence of events, and we therefore affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals.

Rule 56(c) permits summary judgment when no genuine issue of material fact remains on the claim.

Roach v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat'l Ass'n · filed 2025-12-03Rule 56(c)

We hold the trial court did not err by granting summary judgment in favor of Defendant where no genuine issue of material fact remained as to Plaintiffs’ unfair and deceptive trade practices claim.

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.

Blaylock's Glen Homeowners Ass'n, Inc. v. Jones · filed 2026-01-07Rule 56(c)

North Carolina Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c) allows a moving party to obtain summary judgment upon demonstrating “the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits” show they are “entitled to a judgment as a matter of law” and “there is no genuine issue as to any material fact.” ... Defendant did not refute this affidavit. ... The trial court properly granted summary judgment for Plaintiff in their action to quiet title.

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.

Stein v. Hall · filed 2026-01-07Rule 56(c)

North Carolina Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c) allows a moving party to obtain summary judgment upon demonstrating “the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits” show “there is no genuine issue as to any material fact,” and they are “entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.”

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

Bettis v. Weiss · filed 2026-02-04Rule 56(c)

As there remains no genuine dispute of any material fact, we reverse summary judgment granted to plaintiff and remand for entry of summary judgment for defendants on their easement by plat counterclaim.

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.

Dales v. Gardner-Webb Univ. · filed 2026-03-04Rule 56(c)

North Carolina Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c) allows a moving party to obtain summary judgment upon demonstrating “the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits” show “there is no genuine issue as to any material fact,” and they are “entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.”

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

Barefoot v. Durham Cnty. · filed 2026-03-18Rule 56(c)

However, given there is no issue of material fact, summary judgment is the proper disposition. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 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.

Dunckel v. City of Winston-Salem · filed 2026-04-01Rule 56(c)

A trial court properly grants 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 judgment as a matter of law.” N.C.G.S. § 1A-1, Rule 56(c).

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

Cello v. Secrest · filed 2026-04-01Rule 56(c)

“[I]f 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,” then the trial court shall grant a motion for summary judgment. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 56(c) (2023).

Rule 56(e) requires a party opposing summary judgment to present evidence of a genuine issue rather than rely on allegations in its pleadings.

Auto Provisions, LLC v. G1.34 Holdings, LLC · filed 2026-04-23Rule 56(e)

Similarly, no evidence was presented that any other material contract was entered into without G1.34’s review, and G1.34 may not rest on the allegations of its counterclaims to create a genuine issue for trial.

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

Erie Ins. Exch. v. Kobisky · filed 2026-05-20Rule 56(c)

Summary judgment is proper where “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.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 56(c) (2025).

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.

NC Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., Inc. v. Lanier L. Grp. · filed 2021-06-01Rule 56(c)

North Carolina Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c) entitles a movant to obtain summary judgment upon demonstrating “the pleadings, depositions, answers to ... interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits” show there is “no genuine issue as to any material fact” and the movant is “entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.”

Rule 56 permits summary judgment when there is no genuine dispute of material fact.

Osborne v. Yadkin Valley Econ. Dev. Dist. Inc. · filed 2021-09-07Rule 56

Pursuant to Rule 56 of our rules of civil procedure, summary judgment is appropriate where there is no genuine ... dispute of material fact.

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

Bartley v. City of High Point · filed 2022-06-17Rule 56(c)

Summary judgment is proper only “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 the moving party is ... entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” N.C.G.S. § 1A-1, N.C. R. Civ. P. 56(c); see also Singleton v. Stewart, 280 N.C. 460, 464–65 (1972).

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.

Autry v. Bill Clark Homes · filed 2022-12-20(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.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 56(c) (2021).

Rule 56(e) requires a party opposing a supported summary judgment motion to present specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial rather than rely on allegations in a pleading.

Burkette v. Georgia International Life Insurance · filed 1977-03-02Rule 56(e)

The motion of defendant was made and supported as provided by Rule 56. Plaintiffs did not respond. Summary judgment for defendant was appropriate.

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

Carter v. Georgia Life & Health Insurance · filed 1977-03-16Rule 56(e)

In response to the motion for summary judgment, plaintiff rested upon his pleadings, which do not allege any reason for the delay in furnishing written proof of loss. G.S. 1A-1, Rule 56(e) provides that the party opposing a properly supported motion for summary judgment “may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of his pleading, but his response . . . 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.”

Rule 56 permits summary judgment in a derivative action that lacks merit, but the ruling must address the merits rather than the adequacy of intracorporate procedures.

Alford v. Shaw · filed 1985-02-05Rule 56

Summary judgment will remain an appropriate device where plaintiffs bring suits of little or no merit, and protective orders are available to protect corporations against discovery “fishing expeditions” into irrelevant areas. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, Rules 56, -26 of the Rules of Civil Procedure (1983). Consistent with our application of the business judgment rule, such summary judgment must however be on the merits of the decision, not on the adequacy of intracorporate procedures used to determine those merits.

Under Rule 56(c), a plaintiff facing an established release must show grounds for avoiding it to defeat summary judgment.

Talton v. Mac Tools, Inc. · filed 1995-02-21Rule 56(c)

Summary judgment shall be rendered “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no geniune issue as to any material fact and that any party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 56(c) (1990). Where the execution of a release based on valuable consideration is admitted or established by the evidence it provides a complete defense to an action for damages. In such a case, plaintiff must “prove the matter in avoidance of the release” in order to defeat defendants’ motion for summary judgment.

Rule 56(e) requires a party opposing summary judgment to set forth specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial rather than rely on the allegations or denials in a pleading.

W&W Partners, Inc. v. Ferrell Land Co., LLC · filed 2019-07-25Rule 56(e)

However, the nonmovant “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 [the nonmovant] does not so respond, summary judgment, if appropriate, shall be entered against [the nonmovant].” N.C.G.S. § 1A-1, Rule 56(e).

Rule 56(c) permits summary judgment when the undisputed facts leave no material issue for a jury and a party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Ricky Spoon Builders, Inc. v. EmGee · filed 2022-12-06Rule 56(c)

Here, as previously noted, no performance ... was tendered, and thus no triable issue of fact of substantial performance arose for the jury.

Rule 51 requires the judge to explain the law arising on the evidence, but to state the evidence only as needed to explain how the law applies.

Hoffman v. Brown · filed 1970-07-15Rule 51

G.S. 1A-1, Rule 51, Rules of Civil Procedure, provides that the judge “. . . shall declare and explain the law arising on the evidence given in the case.” This rule further provides that the judge does not have to state the evidence except to the extent necessary to explain the application of the law thereto.

Rule 51 requires the trial judge to explain the law on all substantial issues and apply it to the evidence for the jury.

Link v. Link · filed 1970-08-05Rule 51

He did not, however, apply the facts as contended by the defendant to the first three issues which were submitted to the jury. It is incumbent upon the judge to declare and explain the law arising on the evidence as to all substantial features of the case, without any special prayer for instructions to that effect, and a mere declaration of the law in general terms and a statement of the contentions of the parties is insufficient. The judge must bring into view the relations of the particular evidence adduced to the particular issues involved. This is what is meant by the expression that the judge must apply the facts to the law for the enlightenment of the jury.

Rule 51(a) requires the trial court to explain the law arising from the evidence and its application to the jury; failure to do so warrants a new trial.

Turner v. Turner · filed 1970-08-26Rule 51(a)

A reading of the charge as a whole leads to the conclusion that the court failed to “declare and explain the law arising on the evidence given in the case” and failed to state the evidence “to the extent necessary to explain the application of the law thereto.” This the court was required to do by G.S. 1A-1, Rule 51(a) (formerly G.S. 1-180).

Rule 51(a) requires the trial judge to explain the law arising on the evidence; failure to do so entitles the affected party to a new trial.

American Credit Co. of Winston-Salem, Inc. v. Brown · filed 1971-02-03Rule 51(a)

In charging the jury the trial judge did not at any time “declare and explain the law arising on the evidence given in the case.”.This he was required to do.

Rule 51(a) requires a judge charging a civil jury to declare and explain the law arising from the evidence.

Huggins v. Kye · filed 1970-12-30Rule 51(a)

G.S. 1A-1, Rule 51(a), requires the judge, in charging a jury in a civil action, to declare and explain the law arising on the evidence given in the case.

Rule 51(a) requires the trial court to declare and explain the law arising on the evidence; a sudden-emergency instruction is proper when the evidence supports it.

Peterson v. Taylor · filed 1971-01-13Rule 51(a)

In instructing on the doctrine of sudden emergency, the trial court did properly “declare and explain the law arising on the evidence given in the case.” G.S. 1A-1, Rule 51 (a).

Rule 51(a) requires the trial court to recapitulate only as much evidence as needed to explain how the law applies.

McLamb v. Brown Construction Co. · filed 1971-03-31Rule 51(a)

The trial court is not required to recapitulate all of the evidence, but only so much as is necessary to explain the application of the law. G.S. 1A-1, Rule 51 (a).

Rule 51(a) requires the court to declare and explain the law arising on the evidence; a damages instruction satisfies that duty when it correctly states the rule for assessing damages and reviews the injury evidence.

Koutsis v. Waddel · filed 1971-03-31Rule 51(a)

We have carefully considered the court’s instructions to the jury with respect to the issue of damages and find that the court declared and explained the law arising on the evidence by correctly stating the rule for the assessment of damages and reviewing in detail the evidence of plaintiff’s injuries.

Rule 51 requires a judge to explain the law arising from the evidence, not the law on hypothetical facts unsupported by the evidence.

Terrell v. H & N CHEVROLET COMPANY · filed 1971-05-26Rule 51

Under the provisions of G.S. 1A-1, Rule 51, the judge is required to “declare and explain the law arising on the evidence given in the case.” The judge is not required to declare and explain the law on a set of hypothetical facts.

Rule 51(a) requires the court to declare and explain the law arising on the evidence in its jury instructions.

Slocumb v. Metts · filed 1971-07-14Rule 51(a)

By his one assignment of error, the plaintiff contends that the court failed to declare and explain the law arising on the evidence as required by G.S. 1A-1, Rule 51 (a). We have carefully examined the court’s instructions to the jury, and find that the court fully, fairly, and adequately declared and explained the law arising on the evidence as presented at the trial. The assignment of error is without merit.

Rule 51(a) requires the trial judge to fairly declare and explain the law arising on the evidence and give equal stress to each party’s contentions.

Jernigan v. ATLANTIC COAST LINE RAILROAD COMPANY · filed 1971-08-18Rule 51(a)

A review of the complete charge shows that the trial judge fairly declared and explained the law arising on the evidence given in the case and gave equal stress to the contentions of each party. This was all he was required to do. G.S. 1A-1, Rule 51(a).

Rule 51(a) prohibits a judge from expressing an opinion on the facts by telling the jury that the evidence the judge chooses to recap is important.

Little v. Poole · filed 1971-07-14Rule 51(a)

Before recapitulating any of the evidence the court charged: “I will not attempt to recall all of the evidence, but only so much of it as the Court deems is important when you come to consider your verdict.” Through this statement the court inadvertently expressed an opinion on the facts by stating in effect that the evidence which he was to recapitulate was important; whereas, other evidence presented was not. This constitutes a violation of G.S. 1A-1, Rule 51(a).

Rule 51(a) prohibits a trial judge from expressing an opinion on the evidence at any point during a civil trial, not just in the jury charge.

Worrell v. Hennis Credit Union · filed 1971-08-25Rule 51(a)

The prohibition provided by G.S. 1-180 in criminal cases and Rule 51 (a) in civil cases does not apply to the charge alone, but prohibits a trial judge from asking questions or making comments at any time during the trial which amount to an expression of an opinion as to what has or has not been shown by the testimony.

Rule 51(b) requires a party who wants a more thorough or detailed jury charge to request it.

Prevette v. Bullis · filed 1971-10-20(b)

Plaintiff asserts that the court failed to explain the law arising on the evidence as required by G.S. 1A-1, Rule 51. A review of the charge in its entirety fails to disclose any prejudicial error in this respect. If a more thorough or more detailed charge was desired it was incumbent upon plaintiff to request it.

Rule 51(a) requires the trial judge to declare and explain the law arising from the evidence when instructing the jury.

Price v. Conley · filed 1971-11-17Rule 51(a)

Moreover, considering the charge as a whole, the judge failed properly to “declare and explain the law arising on the evidence given in the case,” as he was required to do by G.S. 1A-1, Rule 5Í(a).

Rule 51(a) prohibits a judge from expressing an opinion in the jury charge on whether a fact was fully or sufficiently proven.

Bank of North Carolina, N. A. v. Barry · filed 1972-03-29Rule 51(a)

Defendants’ contention that the court expressed an opinion as to whether a fact was fully or sufficiently proven in violation of G.S. 1A-1, Rule 51(a) is without merit.

Rule 51 requires the judge to explain and apply the law to the facts pertinent to the issue; a general statement of the law is insufficient.

Investment Properties of Asheville, Inc. v. Norburn · filed 1972-05-10Rule 51

G.S. 1-180, as now incorporated in G.S. 1A-1, Rule 51, required the judge to explain and apply the law to the specific facts pertinent to the issue involved. A mere declaration of the law in general terms was not sufficient to meet the requirements of the statute.

Rule 51(a) requires a trial judge, without a request, to explain the law arising from the evidence on a substantial feature of the case.

Gelder & Associates, Inc. v. Continental Insurance · filed 1972-08-23Rule 51(a)

G.S. 1A-1, Rule 51(a) requires the judge to declare and explain the law arising on the evidence in the case. Whether time was of the essence of the contract between the parties was a substantial feature of this case and the trial judge was required, without a request, to declare and explain the law with respect thereto.

Rule 51(a) requires the judge to instruct the jury which facts, if found, would constitute negligence and contributory negligence.

Ford v. Marshall · filed 1972-09-20Rule 51(a)

The trial judge also failed to instruct the jury as to what facts if found would constitute negligence and contributory negligence. G.S. 1A-1, Rule 51 (a).

Rule 51 requires the trial judge to charge the jury on the substantial features of the case supported by the evidence; failure to do so is prejudicial error even without a request for a special instruction.

Clay v. Garner · filed 1972-11-22Rule 51

Rule 51 confers a substantial legal right, and imposes upon the trial judge a positive duty, and his failure to charge on the substantial features of the case arising on the evidence is prejudicial error, even without a prayer for special instruction.

Rule 51 requires the judge to explain how the law applies to the evidence when instructing the jury.

Maynard v. Pigford · filed 1972-12-20Rule 51

G.S. 1A-1, Rule 51 requires the judge to explain the application of law to the evidence in the case.

Rule 51 requires the trial judge to explain the law arising from the evidence and review enough evidence to show how that law applies.

Bodenheimer v. Bodenheimer · filed 1973-02-21(a)

Rule 51 requires the trial judge to perform two positive acts: (1) to declare and explain the law arising on the evidence presented in the case; and (2) to review such evidence to the extent necessary to explain the application of that law to the particular facts and circumstances of the case.

Rule 51(a) prohibits a judge from expressing an opinion on whether a fact is sufficiently proved, but a comment on the admissibility of evidence does not violate that prohibition.

Braswell v. Purser · filed 1972-08-30Rule 51(a)

We do not think the court expressed an opinion “whether a fact is fully or sufficiently proved” in violation of G.S. 1A-1, Rule 51 (a). We think the court was merely stating an opinion as to the admissibility of the evidence and we agree with the conclusion.

Rule 51(a) prohibits a judge from telling the jury whether a fact has been fully or sufficiently proved.

In re the Will of Holland · filed 1972-10-25Rule 51(a)

In giving this instruction the judge invaded the province of the jury and violated the prohibition of G.S. 1A-1, Rule 51 (a), that in charging the jury “no judge shall give an opinion whether a fact is fully or sufficiently proved, that being the true office and province of the jury.”

A judge’s use of “victim” in a jury charge is not a prejudicial expression of opinion when the context makes clear it refers only to the person killed.

Merchants Distributors, Inc. v. Hutchinson · filed 1972-12-20Rule 51(a)

In so doing, we note that in the context in which the word “victim” was used, it was obvious both to counsel for the plaintiffs and to the jury that the court was referring solely to the fact that Mark S. Hutchinson was the only person who was killed in the collision.

Rule 51(a) bars jury instructions that give unequal stress to the parties’ contentions, but their statements of contentions need not be equal in length.

Dickens v. Everhart · filed 1973-02-14Rule 51(a)

It is not required that the statement of contentions be of equal length. ... After a careful review of the challenged instructions, we conclude that the court did not give unequal stress to the contentions of either party in violation of G.S. 1A-1, Rule 51 (a).

Rule 51(a) does not require a court to repeat injury evidence when explaining personal injury damages if the court has already reviewed that evidence in detail.

Love v. Hunt · filed 1973-03-28Rule 51(a)

Where the court reviews in detail evidence of plaintiff’s injuries, the failure of the court to repeat such evidence in enunciating the rule for the admeasurement of damages for personal injury is not error.

Rule 51 requires the trial judge to explain the law arising on the evidence, including which facts would constitute negligence.

Brady v. Smith · filed 1973-05-23Rule 51

Among those assignments of error is defendant’s contention that the judge failed properly to explain the law arising upon the evidence as required by G.S. 1A-1, Rule 51. We feel that defendant’s exception is well taken.

Rule 51 permits a judge to use language from the complaint in jury instructions so long as the judge explains all law arising from the evidence.

Broadnax v. Deloatch · filed 1974-01-09Rule 51

The fact that some of the language of the complaint was used in declaring the law of the case is not error so long as the judge explains all the law arising from the evidence as was done in this case.

Rule 51(a) prohibits a judge from expressing an opinion on the evidence when instructing the jury; an inadvertent expression can be prejudicial.

In re the Will of York · filed 1973-06-13Rule 51(a)

We think the court in providing the instructions quoted above inadvertently expressed an opinion on the evidence in contravention of G.S. 1A-1, Rule 51(a), and that the error was prejudicial to propounders.

Rule 51(a) requires the judge to explain the law arising on the evidence and apply it to the evidence in the case; a general explanation of the law is insufficient.

Campbell v. Campbell · filed 1973-07-11Rule 51(a)

We also hold that the judge failed to declare and explain the law arising on the evidence as required by G.S. 1A-1, Rule 51(a). A charge which contains a general explanation of the law but fails to apply the law to the evidence given in the case then being tried is insufficient.

Rule 51(a) forbids a judge from conveying an opinion on the facts to the jury at any stage of trial, including outside the jury charge.

State Highway Commission v. Ferry · filed 1973-09-12Rule 51(a)

While G.S. 1A-1, Rule 51(a) refers to the judge’s charge, nevertheless, the admonition has always been construed to forbid the judge to convey to the jury in any manner at any stage of the trial his opinion on the facts in evidence.

Rule 51(a) requires jury instructions to explain the law arising from the facts, including a required time period for abandonment.

McIntosh v. McIntosh · filed 1974-02-20Rule 51(a)

An instruction as to abandonment alone without an instruction as to the time period over which the abandonment must exist is an insufficient explanation of the law arising from the facts. G.S. 1A-1, Rule 51 (a).

Rule 51(b) requires a party to request a special jury instruction on an issue the court otherwise need not address.

Hudson v. Hudson · filed 1974-05-01Rule 51(b)

The issue of condonation was not raised in the pleadings, and plaintiff did not request a special instruction as required by G.S. 1A-1, Rule 51 (b).

Rule 51 prohibits a trial judge from expressing an opinion about the case through rulings or comments; questioning witnesses to clarify evidence without bias does not violate that prohibition.

Wyatt v. Haywood · filed 1974-07-03Rule 51

Defendants also claim that “the Court made numerous rulings on objections timely made by the defendants, along with other comments on the evidence presented, which clearly indicated to the jury the Court’s attitude toward the trial of the case, ...” in violation of G.S. 1A-1, Rule 51 which prohibits expressions of opinion by the court. We have carefully reviewed the rulings and comments which form the basis for these assignments of error and have concluded that the court neither expressly nor implicitly indicated any opinion regarding the case. We have also determined that although the court frequently questioned plaintiff’s witnesses, in so doing it was endeavoring to clarify the evidence and did not unduly or in a biased manner interfere with counsel’s presentation of the case.

Rule 51(a) bars a trial judge from expressing an opinion on the facts in evidence through questioning that strengthens a witness’s testimony before the jury.

Duke Power Co. v. Busick · filed 1974-10-16Rule 51(a)

By its assignment of error six, petitioner contends the trial judge expressed an opinion on the facts in evidence in violation of G.S. 1A-1, Rule 51 (a). We think this assignment has merit. ... We think his opinion that respondents’ land was damaged approximately $78,643 was strengthened by his colloquy with the trial judge to the prejudice of petitioner. The assignment of error is sustained.

Under Rule 51(a), a trial judge’s comments are assessed in light of the judge’s broad discretion to supervise the trial and prevent injustice.

Hines v. Pierce · filed 1974-10-16Rule 51(a)

By five assignments of error, plaintiff contends “[t]he adverse comments, remarks and language of the trial judge with reference to the plaintiff’s evidence and plaintiff’s counsel were of such antagonistic propensity toward the plaintiff that she was denied her right to a fair trial,” in violation of G.S. 1A-1, Rule 51(a). The major portion of plaintiff’s brief is devoted to a discussion of these assignments. Suffice it to say, we have carefully considered the assignments and find them to be without merit. It is well settled that it is the duty of the trial judge to supervise and control the trial to prevent injustice to either party, and in discharging that duty the trial judge has large discretionary powers. 7 Strong, N. C. Index 2d, Trial § 9, pp. 266-67. We hold that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in the conduct of the trial in this case.

Rule 51(a) bars a trial judge from expressing an opinion on the sufficiency of the evidence in the jury charge.

Frazier v. Glasgow · filed 1975-02-19(a)

Finally, based on four exceptions duly noted in the record, plaintiff contends the trial judge “express [ed] his opinion as to the sufficiency of proof in the plaintiff’s evidence”, in violation of G.S. 1A-1, Rule 51(a), Rules of Civil Procedure. Each of these exceptions relates to a statement by the judge in his charge as to the contentions of the parties. In our opinion, the charge of the court is free from prejudicial error.

Rule 51(a) requires the trial judge to instruct the jury on an ordinance pleaded and supported by evidence when it is a substantial feature of the case.

Pharo v. Pearson · filed 1975-12-17Rule 51(a)

G.S. 1A-1, Rule 51(a), clearly imposes on the trial judge the duty to “declare and explain the law arising on the evidence given in the case.” ... By alleging the- ordinance, introducing it in evidence, and presenting testimony tending to show its violation by defendants, plaintiffs made the ordinance a substantial feature of the case, thereby imposing on the trial judge a positive duty to give appropriate jury instructions with respect to the ordinance.

Rule 51 requires the trial judge to address the material features of the case in the jury charge, even without a request for special instructions.

Horne ex rel. Horne v. Wall · filed 1975-11-05Rule 51

Rule 51 confers a substantial legal right, not dependent on a request for special instructions, and failure to charge on the material features of the case is prejudicial error.

Rule 51 requires jury instructions to limit negligence theories to those supported by the evidence and to apply the law to that evidence.

Spears v. Service Distributing Co. · filed 1975-12-03Rule 51

Second, the instruction that the jury could find negligence in that “the equipment was not in proper working order” is so broad and general in scope that it does not properly limit jury considerations to the negligence which is supported by the evidence.

Rule 51(a) requires the trial judge to explain the law arising on the evidence and instruct the jury on the central issue; failure to do so warrants a new trial.

Berube v. Mobile Homes Sales and Service · filed 1975-12-17Rule 51(a)

The jurors were not correctly apprised of the issue before them and the law relevant thereto. For failure of the trial judge to comply with the mandate of Rule 51(a), defendant is entitled to a New trial.

Rule 51 requires the trial court to explain the law in its charge to the jury.

Dawson v. Sugg · filed 1977-04-06Rule 51

Finally, by their fourth assignment of error, defendants contend the trial court erred in its charge to the jury in that it failed to explain the law as required by G.S. 1A-1, Rule 51. We have carefully considered this assignment and find it also to be without merit.

Rule 51(b) requires a request for a special jury instruction to be presented in writing at the proper time.

State v. Wilkins · filed 1977-11-16(b)

No authority is presented to support this position, nor was the request for this special instruction presented in writing in apt time in accordance with the requirements of G.S. 1A-1, Rule 51(b).

Rule 51 requires a trial court charging a civil jury to explain the law and apply it to the evidence on the action's substantial issues.

Cockrell v. Cromartie Transport Co. · filed 1978-07-14Rule 51

When charging the jury in a civil case it is the duty of the trial court to explain the law and to apply it to the evidence on the substantial issues of the action.

Rule 51 requires the trial judge to explain the law for each reasonable interpretation of the evidence.

Williamson v. Vann · filed 1979-08-07Rule 51

G.S. 1A-1, Rule 51, compels the trial judge to declare and explain the law arising on the evidence. Where the evidence is susceptible of several interpretations, it is incumbent upon the trial court to give and explain the law on each variant interpretation which is supported by a reasonable view of the evidence.

When a trial court states the parties’ contentions in its jury instructions, Rule 51(a) requires it to give equal stress to contentions relevant to the decisive issues at trial.

Daniels v. Jones · filed 1979-08-07Rule 51(a)

In our opinion, the trial court failed to give equal stress to the primary contentions of the parties as required by G.S. 1A-1, Rule 51(a), and the relevant case law.

Rule 51(a) requires the trial judge to explain the law supported by the evidence; paraphrasing it while stating a party’s contentions does not satisfy that duty.

North Carolina Board of Transportation v. Rand · filed 1980-03-05Rule 51(a)

In view of this, we cannot hold that a paraphrase of the law of benefits contained in the trial court’s statement to the jury of the plaintiff’s contentions, as happened here, is adequate to satisfy the mandate of G.S. 1A-1, Rule 51(a).

Rule 51 requires a jury instruction on a substantial issue when the evidence supports submitting that issue to the jury.

Wray v. Hughes · filed 1980-02-05Rule 51

Upon a careful review of the evidence presented, we conclude that there was evidence which would have supported a charge on the issue of last clear chance. Plaintiff is, therefore, entitled to a new trial.

Rule 51(b) requires a timely written request for a proposed jury instruction.

Thomas v. Deloatch · filed 1980-03-04Rule 51(b)

Further, defendant did not timely request such an instruction in writing as required by G.S. 1A-1, Rule 51(b) and G.S. 1-181. The assignment of error on this point is, therefore, overruled.

Rule 51(a) is satisfied when the jury instructions, viewed as a whole, adequately explain the law and the facts needed to support a verdict.

Morris v. Morris · filed 1980-05-20Rule 51(a)

She contends first that the trial judge failed to declare and explain the law arising on the evidence as required by G.S. 1A-1, Rule 51(a). We find no error. ... Viewed contextually, the charge adequately apprised the jury of the facts which, if found by them to be true, would justify such a verdict.

Rule 51(a) is satisfied when the jury charge sufficiently addresses the material evidence and fairly applies the law to the facts.

Hanks v. Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance · filed 1980-07-01Rule 51(a)

Plaintiff contends that the trial court failed to declare and explain the law arising on the evidence as required by G.S. 1A-1, Rule 51(a), of the Rules of Civil Procedure in two events: (1) The Court should have reviewed her evidence in greater detail to point out the “great disparity” between plaintiffs evidence and that of defendant. (2) The court failed to explain to the jury what facts it would have to find to establish an intentional misrepresentation as to the extent of loss in order to constitute fraud. We do not find error. ... We hold that the trial court sufficiently instructed the jury on the material aspects of the case arising on the evidence and fairly applied the law to the factual situation.

Rule 51(a) permits an instruction on the general measure of damages without further elaboration when no party specially requests it.

Zarn, Inc. v. Southern Railway Co. · filed 1981-01-20(a)

Although not a model of precision, we hold that the trial court’s j ury instruction adequately charged the j ury on the ordinary measure of general damages and fully complied with G.S. 1A-1, Rule 51(a). Absent a special request by plaintiff to fully define or to elaborate the damages rule, the fact that the jury instructions included only the general rule for determining the damages is not grounds for reversal.

Rule 51 requires the trial court to explain and apply the law to substantial issues and to instruct the jury on a defense supported by sufficient evidence.

Plymouth Pallet Co., Inc. v. Wood · filed 1981-05-05Rule 51

When charging the jury in a civil case, it is the duty of the trial court to explain the law and to apply it to the evidence on the substantial issues of the action. G.S. 1A-1, Rule 51; Cockrell v. Cromartie Transport Co., 295 N.C. 444, 245 S.E. 2d 497 (1978). When a party contends that certain acts constitute a defense against another, the trial court must submit the issue to the jury with appropriate instructions if there is evidence which, when viewed in the light most favorable to the proponent, will support a reasonable inference of each essential element of the defense asserted.

Rule 51(a) requires the trial court to identify for the jury the acts or omissions supported by the pleadings and evidence that could constitute negligence or contributory negligence.

Everhart v. LeBrun · filed 1981-05-19Rule 51(a)

Under G.S. 1A-1, Rule 51(a), as interpreted by our appellate courts, the trial court must relate to the jury the specific acts or omissions which, under the pleadings and evidence, could constitute negligence or contributory negligence.

Rule 51(a) requires the court to explain the applicable law in its jury instructions and apply it to the evidence presented.

Furr v. Pinoca Volunteer Fire Department of Paw Creek Township, Inc. · filed 1981-08-18Rule 51(a)

The failure to declare and explain the law of concurring negligence as requested and to apply it to the evidence presented was error entitling plaintiffs to a new trial. G.S. 1A-1, Rule 51(a).

Rule 51(a) requires the judge to summarize only enough evidence to explain the applicable law and give equal stress to the parties’ contentions; the judge need not mention every exhibit.

Noland Co., Inc. v. Poovey · filed 1981-10-06Rule 51(a)

In view of the laxness of the requirement of Rule 51 with regard to the charge on the evidence, we find that the court’s failure to refer to defendant Poovey’s exhibits when instructing the jury on his contentions was not error.

Rule 51(a) does not require a judge to summarize each witness’s testimony when instructing the jury, so long as the judge states the evidence needed to explain the law and gives equal stress to the parties’ contentions.

White v. Greer · filed 1982-01-19Rule 51(a)

In summarizing the evidence for the jury, the trial judge did not name and summarize the testimony of each witness. G.S. 1A-1, Rule 51(a) provides, in part, as follows: “The judge shall not be required to state such evidence except to the extent necessary to explain the application of the law thereto; provided, the judge shall give equal stress to the contentions of the various parties.” We find no prejudice to plaintiff in the court’s failure to recapitulate the officer’s testimony, and overrule this assignment of error.

Rule 51 requires the trial court to explain the law and apply it to the evidence on all substantial features of the case; failure to do so is prejudicial error requiring a new trial.

Clifford v. River Bend Plantation, Inc. · filed 1982-02-02Rule 51

The trial court failed to explain and apply the law to the evidence as required by G.S. 1A-1, Rule 51. It is the duty of the court to explain the law and apply it to the evidence presented on all substantial features of the case. The failure to do so constitutes prejudicial error for which the aggrieved party is entitled to a new trial.

Rule 51(a) requires the trial court to explain how the law applies to the evidence; a general explanation of contributory negligence is insufficient.

Zach v. Surry-Yadkin Electric Membership Corp. · filed 1982-05-18Rule 51(a)

G.S. 1A-1, Rule 51(a) places a mandatory duty on the trial court to “[djeclare and explain the law arising on the evidence given in the case. The Judge shall not be required to state such evidence except to the extent necessary to explain the application of the law thereto; . . .”. It is not enough that the trial court recites a general explanation of the law of negligence or contributory negligence.

Rule 51(a) requires the trial judge to explain the law arising from the evidence; an instruction on an irrelevant breach of contract issue is not required.

Williams v. East Coast Sales, Inc. · filed 1982-12-07Rule 51(a)

The trial judge is required to declare and explain the law arising on the evidence given in the case. G.S. 1A-1, Rule 51(a). ... Therefore, the issue of breach of contract is irrelevant to plaintiff’s right to relief under the facts of this case. Defendant’s assignment of error is without merit.

Rule 51(a) requires the trial court to explain the law and apply it to the evidence; failure to do so is prejudicial error.

Deep Run Milling Co. v. Williams · filed 1982-12-21Rule 51(a)

It is indeed the duty of the jury to recall the evidence presented. However, it is also the duty of the trial court to explain the law and apply it to the evidence presented. G.S. 1A-1, Rule 51(a). ... The trial court’s failure to review any evidence and thus apply the law to the evidence is prejudicial error.

Rule 51(a) requires the trial court, without a special request, to explain the law and apply it to the evidence on all substantial features of the case; failure to do so is prejudicial error warranting a new trial.

Stiles v. Charles M. Morgan Co., Inc. · filed 1983-10-04Rule 51(a)

The trial court has a “duty, without a request for special instruction, to explain the law and apply it to the evidence on all substantial features of the case.” ... The failure to do so constitutes prejudicial error and entitles the aggrieved party to a new trial.

Rule 51 requires a trial judge to explain the law arising from the evidence, but does not require an instruction unsupported by evidence from which the jury could reasonably make the necessary finding.

Matter of Will of Cooley · filed 1984-02-07Rule 51

While it is the general rule that in a civil case the trial judge must declare and explain the law arising in the evidence, even in the absence of a special request, see N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 51 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, ... the rule has certain accepted limits. ... Hence, the trial court was not required to charge on the application of this evidence to the issues submitted to the jury.

Rule 51 is satisfied when jury instructions declare and explain the law arising from the evidence.

Matter of Will of Maynard · filed 1983-10-04Rule 51

The instructions given the jury declared and explained the law arising on the evidence given in the case. ... The propounders’ contention that the court violated G.S. 1A-1, Rule 51 is without merit.

Rule 51(a) permits a judge to omit a summary of the parties’ contentions when instructing the jury.

Goble v. Helms · filed 1983-10-18Rule 51(a)

The court chose not to summarize the parties’ contentions, as it had the right to do.

Rule 51(b) requires requests for special jury instructions to be written, entitled in the cause, and signed by the submitting counsel or party.

Sykes v. Floyd · filed 1983-11-15Rule 51(b)

G.S. 1A-1, Rule 51(b) provides that “[requests for special instructions must be in writing, entitled in the cause, and signed by the counsel or party submitting them.” Defendant failed to comply with this provision; therefore, this assignment of error is overruled.

Rule 51 requires the trial judge to explain the law and apply it to the evidence on all substantial features of the case.

Federated Mutual Insurance v. Hardin · filed 1984-04-03Rule 51

We recognize that G.S. 1A-1, Rule 51 imposes upon the trial judge a duty to explain the law and to apply it to the evidence on all substantial features of the case.

Rule 51(a) requires a trial judge to explain the law arising from the evidence when charging a jury; prejudicial errors in the charge warrant a new trial.

Glenn v. Wagner · filed 1984-04-03(a)

Rule 51(a) provides that when charging the jury in a civil action, the trial judge shall declare and explain the law arising on the evidence. ... This rule confers a substantial legal right and imposes upon the trial judge a positive duty, and his failure to charge on the substantial features of the case arising on the evidence constitutes prejudicial error. ... We find both types of errors present in the case under discussion. For the reasons set forth below, the case must be remanded to the Superior Court for a new trial.

Rule 51 requires the trial judge to instruct the jury on substantial issues supported by the evidence.

Adams v. Mills · filed 1984-05-01Rule 51

G.S. 1A-1, Rule 51, requires a judge to “declare and explain the law arising on the evidence given in the case.” This rule imposes a positive duty on the trial judge to charge on the substantial features of the case as the evidence dictates.

Rule 51(b) requires a written request and proposed instruction for a special instruction on a subordinate feature of the case; a judge may deny an oral request that does not meet those requirements.

Hord v. Atkinson · filed 1984-05-15(b)

The trial judge denied the plaintiffs request for such a special instruction upon learning that the plaintiff had failed to submit a proposed instruction and had failed to submit her request to him in writing as required by G.S. 1A-1, Rule 51(b). We agree with the trial court that the plaintiffs request went beyond the trial judge’s general duty of explaining the law arising on the evidence with respect to the substantial features of the case. On this subordinate feature, because the plaintiff did not comply with the requirements of Rule 51(b), we hold the trial judge was properly within his discretion in denying her oral request for this special instruction.

Rule 46(b) permits a party who timely requested a written jury instruction that the court denied after argument on the record to raise the issue without objecting again to the instructions given.

State v. McGill · filed 1985-03-05Rule 46(b)

We reject the state’s argument that defendant’s assignment is not properly before us because he failed to object to the instructions as given. See Rule 10(b)(2) of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. Defendant timely submitted written instructions and the court denied his request after argument on record. This sufficed to bring the question forward. See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 46(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Rule 51 requires the judge to explain the law and apply it to the evidence on all substantial features of the case.

Penley v. Penley · filed 1985-07-03Rule 51

Furthermore, the trial judge instructed the jury in accordance with G.S. 1A-1, Rule 51, which requires the judge to explain the law and to apply it to the evidence on all substantial features of the case.

Rule 51(a) requires the trial judge to explain the law arising from the evidence, but does not require an instruction on an issue unsupported by the evidence.

Dunn v. Herring · filed 1985-06-18Rule 51(a)

G.S. 1A-1, Rule 51(a) requires the trial judge to declare and explain the law arising on the evidence presented in the case. We have reviewed the record and we can find no evidence that would require the trial judge to instruct on proper control.

Rule 51(a) requires the trial court to explain the law applicable to a substantial feature of the case, even without a request for special instructions.

Scher v. Antonucci · filed 1985-11-19Rule 51(a)

The trial court has a “duty ... to explain the law and apply it to the evidence on all substantial features of the case.” ... G.S. 1A-1, Rule 51(a); ... Since violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. 20-152(a) bears directly on the issue of defendant-husband’s negligence, which is a substantial feature of the case, the court should have declared and explained this section in its charge to the jury. ... It had this duty irrespective of plaintiffs request for special instructions.

Rule 51(a) requires a judge who summarizes the evidence in a jury charge to give equal stress to the parties’ contentions.

Dobson v. Honeycutt · filed 1986-01-21Rule 51(a)

This statement of the evidence, failing as it did to even mention the compelling direct and circumstantial evidence that the Honey-cutt car was in the Dobson car’s lane of travel when the collision occurred, failed to give equal stress to the contentions of the parties.

Rule 51(a) requires a judge to instruct the jury on evidence-supported grounds for contributory negligence; omitting one can prejudice the defendant.

Murrow v. Daniels · filed 1987-05-05Rule 51(a)

When this case was tried G.S. 1A-1, Rule 51(a), N.C. Rules of Civil Procedure, required the judge to declare the law arising on the facts and state the evidence necessary to explain the application of the law to them. ... That rule required the court to instruct the jury as to the things that plaintiff did or failed to do, according to the evidence, that could constitute contributory negligence, Zach v. Surry-Yadkin Electric Membership Corp., 57 N.C.App. 326, 291 S.E.2d 290 (1982), and in not charging that plaintiff's failure to use the bathroom window could constitute contributory negligence the rule was violated to defendants' prejudice.

Rule 51 jury instructions serve to clarify the issues, summarize relevant evidence, and state the applicable law.

McNeill v. Durham County ABC Board · filed 1987-09-01Rule 51

The purpose of instructing the jury is to clarify the issues, summarize the relevant evidence, and state the law applicable thereto.

A trial judge’s failure to give a properly requested jury instruction that is correct and supported by the evidence, at least in substance, is reversible error.

Millis Construction Co. v. Fairfield Sapphire Valley, Inc. · filed 1987-08-04Rule 51(b)

... tenders a written request for a special instruction which is correct in itself and supported by the evidence, the failure of the trial judge to give the instruction, at least in substance, constitutes reversible error.

Rule 51(a) does not require a trial court to explain how the law applies to the evidence, but the court must instruct the jury on the law governing every substantial feature of the case.

Mosley & Mosley Builders, Inc. v. Landin Ltd. · filed 1987-11-03Rule 51(a)

Though the trial court is no longer required to explain the application of the law to the evidence, G.S. 1A-1, Rule 51(a) (1985), it remains the duty of the court to instruct the jury upon the law with respect to every substantial feature of the case.

Rule 51(a) does not require a judge to apply the law to the evidence, but a judge who chooses to do so must instruct completely and without omission.

York v. Northern Hospital District of Surry County · filed 1987-12-22Rule 51(a)

Although the trial judge is no longer required to apply the law to the evidence, G.S. 1A-1, Rule 51(a) (1985 Cum. Supp.), if the ... judge undertakes to do so he must instruct completely and without omission.

The version of Rule 51(a) applicable at trial required the court to instruct the jury on the law arising from the evidence and apply it to conflicting factual accounts.

Murrow v. Daniels · filed 1988-02-03Rule 51(a)

When this case was tried, N.C.G.S. § 1A-1, Rule 51(a) (1985) required the trial court to instruct the jury as to the applicable law arising on the evidence and to apply the law to the variant factual situations presented by the conflicting evidence.

Rule 51 requires a court to give, at least in substance, a properly requested jury instruction that is correct and supported by the evidence.

Williams v. Randolph · filed 1989-07-05Rule 51

Pursuant to G.S. 1A-1, Rule 51, when a party aptly tenders a written request for a specific instruction which is correct in itself and supported by the evidence, it is error for the court to fail to give the instruction at least in substance.

Rule 51(b) requires requests for special jury instructions to be submitted in writing before the judge's charge begins.

Rowan County Board of Education v. United States Gypsum Co. · filed 1991-07-02(b)

As for the first issue, it is sufficient to note that Gypsum's request did not comply with N.C.Gen.Stat. § 1-181 (1983) and N.C.Gen.Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 51(b) (1990), both of which require that requests for special instructions be submitted in writing and before the judge's charge to the jury is begun.

Rule 51 requires reversal when a trial judge fails to give, at least in substance, a requested jury instruction that is correct and supported by the evidence.

City of Statesville v. Cloaninger · filed 1992-04-07Rule 51

Pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 51 (1990) of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure, “[w]hen a party appropriately tenders a written request for a special instruction which is correct in itself and supported by the evidence, the failure of the trial judge to give the instruction, at least in substance, constitutes reversible error.”

Rule 51 does not require a trial court to explain how the law applies to the evidence, but the court must instruct the jury on every substantial feature of the case.

Holtman v. Kathy Morgan Reese & Durham Taxicab Ass'n · filed 1995-08-15Rule 51

While a trial court need not explain the application of the law to the evidence, N.C.G.S. § 1A-1, Rule 51 (1990), “it remains the duty of the court to instruct the jury upon the law with respect to every substantial feature of the case.” Mosley & Mosley Builders v. Landin Ltd., 87 N.C. App. 438, 445, 361 S.E.2d 608, 612 (1987).

Rule 51(a) permits a generally worded jury instruction that does not apply the law to particular evidence or make findings of fact.

Parker v. Barefoot · filed 1998-07-07Rule 51(a)

The instruction is impermissible, they contend, because it runs contrary to Rule 51(a) of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure, which states that a judge, in charging a jury, "shall not give an opinion as to whether or not a fact is fully or sufficiently proved, summarize or recapitulate the evidence, or ... explain the application of law to the evidence." According to defendants, the instruction requested by plaintiffs called upon the trial court to explain the law arising on the evidence and to make findings of facts that were in dispute. This argument is unpersuasive. The language of plaintiff's instruction is not specific to the facts of this case; rather, the instruction, like most jury instructions, is worded in very general terms so as to apply to any nuisance case. Thus, if the trial court had given the jury the requested instruction, it would not have been explaining the law as it applied to the particular evidence presented in this case, neither would it have been making findings of facts particular to this case.

Rule 51 requires the trial court to instruct the jury on the law arising from the evidence and to give a supported requested instruction in substance.

McLain v. Taco Bell Corp. · filed 2000-04-04

Pursuant to N.C.G.S. 1A-1, Rule 51 (1990), the trial court is “required to instruct a jury on the law arising from the evidence presented,” Lusk v. Case, 94 N.C. App. 215, 216, 379 S.E.2d 651, 652 (1989).

Rule 51(b) requires special-instruction requests to be written, signed by counsel, and submitted before jury instructions.

Byrd's Lawn & Landscaping, Inc. v. Smith · filed 2001-03-06(b)

G.S. § 1A-1, Rule 51(b) requires that a request for special instructions be in writing, signed by counsel, and submitted to the court before the court instructs the jury. Because defendant did not comply with the requirements of Rule 51(b), the trial court acted properly within its discretion in denying the request.

Rule 51(a) requires a trial judge charging a civil jury to declare and explain the law arising from the evidence.

Keener Lumber Co., Inc. v. Perry · filed 2002-03-05(a)

Rule 51(a) of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure provides that when charging the jury in a civil action, the trial court shall declare and explain the law arising on the evidence. See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 51(a) (1999). This rule imposes upon the trial judge a positive duty to explain the law to the jury, and a failure to adequately explain the law to the jury requires a new trial.

Rule 51 requires the trial court to instruct the jury on the law arising from the evidence presented.

Arndt v. First Union National Bank · filed 2005-06-07Rule 51

The trial court is “required to instruct a jury on the law arising from the evidence presented.” Lusk v. Case, 94 N.C. App. 215, 216, 379 S.E.2d 651, 652 (1989); N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 51 (2003).

Rule 51(b) requires requests for special jury instructions to be written, signed by counsel, and submitted before the court instructs the jury; a court may deny an oral request.

Beroth Oil Co. v. Whiteheart · filed 2005-09-06Rule 51(b)

Rule 51(b) of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure requires that a request for special instructions be in writing, signed by counsel, and submitted to the court before the court instructs the jury. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 51(b) (2003). Because defendant did not comply with the requirements of Rule 51(b), the trial court acted properly within its discretion in denying the request.

Rule 61 permits a new trial for an erroneous jury instruction only if the error probably influenced the jury’s verdict.

Sobczak v. Vorholt · filed 2007-02-20Rule 61

We agree with Defendant, however, that Plaintiff is entitled to a new trial only if the trial court’s error in giving a sudden emergency instruction was prejudicial, that is, that it probably influenced the jury’s verdict.

A requested special jury instruction must be legally correct and supported by the evidence; the court may refuse an instruction that misstates the law or whose substance is already in the charge.

Lakeview Condominium Association v. Village of Pinehurst · filed 2007-08-07Rule 51(b)

To determine whether the trial court committed reversible error here, we must first assess whether defendant's request for jury instructions was correct as a matter of law and supported by the evidence.

Rule 50(a) requires a directed verdict motion to state specific grounds; a movant who fails to do so cannot challenge the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal.

Wheeler v. Denton · filed 1970-08-05Rule 50(a)

Since the statute expressly requires that “specific grounds” shall be stated in a motion for a directed verdict, this provision of the rule is mandatory. The appellant, having failed to state “specific grounds,” is not entitled upon this appeal to question the insufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict.

Rule 50 requires a motion for directed verdict to state its specific grounds; failure to do so is sufficient grounds to overrule the motion.

Dixon v. Shelton · filed 1970-09-16Rule 50(a)

G.S. 1A-1, Rule 50, is explicit in its requirement that “A motion for a directed verdict shall state the specific grounds therefor.” ... The defendant’s failure to state the grounds for his motions was sufficient basis for the court’s overruling them.

Rule 50(a) requires a directed-verdict motion to state specific grounds; a party who did not object to their omission at trial cannot raise that defect on appeal.

Builders Supplies Co. of Goldsboro, NC v. Gainey · filed 1971-02-03Rule 50(a)

G.S. 1A-1, Rule 50(a) contains the requirement that “a motion for directed verdict shall state the specific grounds therefor.” ... The record does not disclose an objection made at trial, nor does appellant raise the question on appeal. Therefore, and also because the Rules of Civil Procedure, at the time the trial of this matter had so recently become effective, we have reviewed the matter on its merits.

Rule 50(a) provides a directed verdict motion to challenge whether the plaintiff’s evidence is sufficient for submission to the jury.

Kelly v. International Harvester Company · filed 1971-03-10Rule 50(a)

When plaintiff presented his evidence and rested, defendant’s motion for a directed verdict in its favor was the procedure prescribed by Rule 50(a) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, G.S. 1A-1, for challenging the sufficiency of plaintiff’s evidence for submission to the jury.