N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1

Rule 50(a) requires a directed-verdict motion to state its specific grounds; citing a case alone is not an approved way to meet that requirement.

Grant v. Greene · filed 1971-06-23Rule 50(a)

According to the record, defendant moved for a directed verdict “citing the case of Blake v. Mallard, decided by Justice Sharp in 1964.” This, is certainly not an approved method of complying with the requirement that “A motion for a directed verdict shall state the specific grounds therefor.” G.S. § 1A-1, Rule 50(a).

Rule 50 did not entitle a defendant who bore the burden of proof on every issue to a directed verdict in this case.

Mull v. Mull · filed 1971-12-15Rule 50

Adherence to this requirement would have been particularly helpful here where defendant was apparently seeking a new trial on grounds set forth in G.S. 1A-1, Rule 59 (a) (5) (7) (9), and also a directed verdict under the provisions of G.S. 1A-1, Rule 50. Clearly, defendant, who had the burden of proof on all the issues, was not entitled to a directed verdict.

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

Younts v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance · filed 1972-06-16Rule 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.

Under Rule 50, a directed-verdict motion tests whether the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, is legally sufficient to support the claim.

Investment Properties of Asheville, Inc. v. Allen · filed 1973-05-09

Defendant’s motion for a directed verdict presents the question whether the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiffs, is legally sufficient to establish this premise.

An assignment of error challenging a ruling on a Rule 50(a) directed verdict motion does not present rulings on the admission or exclusion of evidence for appellate review.

Huff v. Thornton · filed 1974-11-06Rule 50(a)

We hold, therefore, that an assignment of error directed to the trial court’s ruling on a motion for directed verdict made under G.S. 1A-1, Rule 50(a) does not present for review rulings, on the admission or exclusion of evidence.

Rule 50(a) requires a motion for a directed verdict to state its specific grounds.

Clary v. Alexander County Board of Education · filed 1975-03-12Rule 50(a)

G.S. 1A-1, Rule 50(a), requires that “[a] motion for a directed verdict shall state the specific grounds therefor.” (Our italics.) This requirement is mandatory.

Rule 50(a) requires the court to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and allows a directed verdict only when the evidence is legally insufficient to support a verdict for the plaintiff.

Ward v. Thompson Heights Swimming Club, Inc. · filed 1975-10-15(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) permits a directed verdict motion challenging whether the evidence, viewed favorably to the plaintiff, is sufficient to support a plaintiff's verdict.

Evans ex rel. Evans v. Carney · filed 1976-06-02(a)

The principal issue is whether the trial court erred in granting defendant’s G.S. 1A-1, Rule 50(a) motion for directed verdict. This motion is directed to the sufficiency of the evidence to justify a verdict for the plaintiff when considered in the light most favorable to him.

Rule 50 requires a defendant who offers evidence after moving for a directed verdict at the close of the plaintiff’s evidence to renew the motion at the close of all evidence, with the ruling based on both parties’ evidence.

Overman v. Gibson Products Co. of Thomasville, Inc. · filed 1976-08-18(a) and (b)

The procedure followed by the trial judge in this case effectively frustrates the policy and purpose of G.S. 1A-1, Rule 50. We have held that by offering evidence, a defendant waives his Rule 50 motion for directed verdict made at the close of plaintiff’s evidence. ... Obviously the trial judge can either not rule or reserve his ruling when a defendant moves for directed verdict at the close of plaintiff’s evidence. However, if thereafter the defendant offers evidence, any subsequent ruling by the trial judge upon defendant’s motion for directed verdict must be upon a renewal of the motion by defendant at the close of all the evidence, and the judge’s ruling must be based upon the evidence of both plaintiff and defendant.

Rule 50 requires the court to consider the plaintiff’s evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff when deciding whether to grant a directed verdict.

Mosley v. Perpetual Savings & Loan Ass'n · filed 1976-08-18

Although we have considered plaintiffs’ evidence in the light most favorable to them, and only that part of defendant’s evidence which does not contradict but only supports, clarifies or explains plaintiffs’ evidence, we conclude that defendant’s motion for directed verdict should have been allowed.

Rule 50(a) requires evidence on a defendant’s directed verdict motion at the close of the plaintiff’s evidence to be taken as true and viewed favorably to the plaintiff, and permits the motion when the evidence is legally insufficient for a verdict.

Farmer v. Chaney · filed 1977-04-14(a)

On motion by a defendant for a directed verdict at close of plaintiff’s evidence in a jury case, as here, the evidence must be taken as true and considered in the light most favorable to plaintiff. When so considered, the motion should be allowed if, as a matter of law, the evidence is insufficient to justify a verdict for the plaintiff. G.S. 1A-1, Rule 50(a), Rules of Civil Procedure; ... Kelly v. Harvester Co., 278 N.C. 153, 179 S.E. 2d 396 (1971).

Rule 50 requires a directed verdict to be denied when evidence viewed favorably to the nonmoving party is sufficient for a jury to decide the issues.

Holt v. City of Statesville · filed 1978-02-21(a)

The principal question presented by this appeal is whether it was error to grant defendants’ motions for directed verdict. From our vantage it appears that it would have been more prudent in the instant case to have submitted this case to the jury while reserving judgment notwithstanding the verdict. G.S. 1A-1, Rule 50. After reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff, giving her the benefit of all reasonable inferences to be drawn and resolving contradictions in her favor and considering so much of defendants’ evidence as is favorable to plaintiff, see, e.g. Clark v. Bodycombe, 289 N.C. 246, 221 S.E. 2d 506 (1976), we find that the evidence was sufficient to be submitted to the jury on the issue of defendants’ negligence and that it did not establish contributory negligence as a matter of law.

Rule 50(a) directs motions for a directed verdict to the sufficiency of the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.

Lyvere v. Ingles Markets, Inc. · filed 1978-06-06(a)

Motions under this rule are directed to the sufficiency of the evidence to support a verdict for the plaintiff, when considered in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.

Rule 50 requires evidence supporting a directed verdict motion to be viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, with reasonable inferences for that party.

Murphy v. Edwards and Warren · filed 1978-06-20

In determining whether the evidence was sufficient to withstand the defendants’ motions for a directed verdict pursuant to G.S. 1A-1, Rule 50, all of the evidence which tends to support the plaintiff’s claim must be taken as true and considered in the light most favorable to him, giving him the benefit of every reasonable inference which may be legitimately drawn therefrom, with contrasts, contradictions, conflicts and inconsistencies resolved in his favor.

Rule 50(a) permits a directed verdict when the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the opposing party, is insufficient for submission to the jury.

Stone v. Paradise Park Homes, Inc. · filed 1978-07-11(a)

The question presented by defendant’s motion for a directed verdict under G.S. 1A-1, Rule 50, is whether the evidence, when considered in the light most favorable to plaintiffs, is sufficient evidence to be submitted to the jury.

Section 1A-1 provides that Rule 50(a) is the procedure for testing whether the plaintiff’s evidence is sufficient for submission to the jury.

Robinson v. Whitley Moving & Storage, Inc. · filed 1978-08-29

Where as here, the plaintiff presented his evidence and rested his case, defendant’s motion for a directed verdict in its favor is 'the procedure prescribed by Rule 50(a) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, G.S. 1A-1, for testing the sufficiency of the plaintiffs evidence for submission to the jury.

Rule 50 governs motions for a directed verdict and applies substantially the same standard as the former motion for judgment of involuntary nonsuit.

Daughtry v. Turnage · filed 1978-08-29

In passing upon a motion for a directed verdict under G.S. 1A-1, Rule 50, the trial court is confronted with substantially the same question as was formerly presented by a motion for judgment of involuntary nonsuit.

Rule 50(a) requires a motion for a directed verdict to state the specific grounds for the motion.

Byerly v. Byerly · filed 1978-11-07(a)

G.S. § 1A-1, Rule 50(a) provides: "A motion for a directed verdict shall state the specific grounds therefor."

Rule 50(a) requires a directed verdict motion to state specific grounds, but an opposing party must object to an omission at trial to raise it on appeal.

Byerly v. Byerly · filed 1978-11-07Rule 50(a)

However, when a motion for a directed verdict is granted, the adverse party who did not make a specific objection at trial to the movant’s failure to state specific grounds therefor is precluded from raising the objection on appeal.

Rule 50 governs motions for directed verdict and permits one when the evidence is legally insufficient for a jury verdict.

Lewis ex rel. Lewis v. Dove · filed 1979-02-06Rule 50

We hold that: (1) Plaintiff’s evidence, taken in the light most favorable to him, would permit a jury to find that defendant’s negligence caused his injuries; therefore, defendant’s motion for a directed verdict was improperly granted.

Rule 50(a) requires a directed verdict motion to state specific grounds, but a court may review the motion when those grounds were apparent to the court and the parties.

Lindsey v. the Clinic for Women · filed 1979-04-03Rule 50(a)

That rule provides that “[a] motion for a directed verdict shall state the specific grounds therefor.” We have held this provision to be mandatory. ... “However, the courts need not inflexibly enforce the rule when the grounds for the motion are apparent to the court and the parties.” ... In the present case it seems obvious that the motion was made on the grounds that the evidence was insufficient to show actionable negligence on the part of the defendants. This must have been apparent to the court and to the plaintiff. Certainly nothing in the record suggests to the contrary. Therefore, we elect to review the trial court’s action in denying defendants’ motion.

Rule 50(a) requires a court considering a defendant’s directed verdict motion to view the evidence in the plaintiff’s favor and grant the motion only when the evidence cannot support a verdict for the plaintiff.

Pearce v. Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co. · filed 1979-05-01Rule 50(a)

On a motion by a defendant for a directed verdict under G.S. 1A-1, Rule 50(a), of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court must consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and may grant such motion only, if, as a matter of law, the evidence is insufficient to justify a verdict for the plaintiff.

Rule 50(a) permits a directed verdict for the defendant only when the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, cannot support a verdict for the plaintiff.

Hecht Realty, Inc. v. Whisnant · filed 1979-06-19Rule 50(a)

It is well settled that on a motion by defendant for a directed verdict under G.S. 1A-1, Rule 50(a), of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court must consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and may grant such motion only if, as a matter of law, the evidence is insufficient to justify a verdict for plaintiff.

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

Fowler-Barham Ford, Inc. v. Indiana Lumbermens Mutual Insurance · filed 1980-03-18Rule 50

The trial court cannot direct a verdict under G.S. 1A-1, Rule 50, of the Rules of Civil Procedure in favor of the party having the burden of proof when his right to recover depends upon the credibility of his witnesses, since it is the established policy of this State — declared in both the Constitution and the statutes — that the credibility of testimony is for the jury, not the court, and that a genuine issue of fact must be tried by a jury unless the right is waived.

Rule 50(a) permits a directed verdict at the close of the plaintiff’s evidence only when that evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, cannot justify a verdict for the plaintiff.

American Home Products Corp. v. Howell's Motor Freight, Inc. · filed 1980-04-15Rule 50(a)

On a motion for directed verdict at the close of the plaintiff’s evidence in a jury case, the evidence must be taken as true and considered in the light most favorable to plaintiff, and the motion may be granted only if, as a matter of law, the evidence is insufficient to justify a verdict for the plaintiff.

Rule 50 permits a directed verdict only when the plaintiff’s evidence is legally insufficient to support a verdict in the plaintiff’s favor.

Russell v. Sam Solomon Co. · filed 1980-10-07

A directed verdict can be granted only when plaintiff’s evidence, as a matter of law, is insufficient to justify a verdict in his favor.

Rule 50(a)'s requirement to state the grounds for a directed-verdict motion may be waived when the parties agree on the sole ground stated and the basis for the ruling.

Burden Pallet Co. v. Ryder Truck Rental, Inc. · filed 1980-10-21Rule 50(a)

However, the parties concede in their briefs that the only ground stated by defendant, and the basis for the judgment directing the verdict, was that the contract was unenforceable because it was not signed by the defendant as required by the contract. Under the circumstances we elect to waive the Rule 50(a) violation and to consider the appeal on its merits.

Rule 50(a) requires a directed verdict motion to state its specific grounds; an appellate court cannot affirm the verdict on a ground the motion did not state.

Feibus & Co., Inc. v. Godley Const. Co., Inc. · filed 1980-11-04Rule 50(a)

We hold that the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the directed verdict on a ground not stated in defendants’ motion. A contrary result would completely frustrate the notice purpose of Rule 50(a) because it would allow an appellant to question the sufficiency of an opponent’s evidence for the first time on appeal.

A defendant who presents evidence after moving for a directed verdict at the close of the plaintiff’s evidence cannot obtain review of that earlier motion.

Tan v. Tan · filed 1980-11-18Rule 50(a)

We first note that we need not consider defendant’s motion for a directed verdict at the close of plaintiffs evidence, as defendant chose thereafter to present evidence in his favor.

Rule 50(a) requires a directed-verdict motion to state its specific grounds; a ground omitted from the motion cannot be raised on appeal.

Jones v. Allred · filed 1981-05-19Rule 50(a)

The requirement set forth in G.S. 1A-1, Rule 50(a) of the Rules of Civil Procedure that “a motion for a directed verdict shall state the specific grounds therefore” is mandatory. ... Defendants not having stated contributory negligence as a ground for their motions, that question is not before us in this appeal.

Rule 50(a) requires a directed-verdict motion to state specific grounds, but courts need not enforce that requirement inflexibly when the grounds are apparent to the court and the parties.

Humphrey v. Hill · filed 1982-01-05Rule 50(a)

Although the provision in Rule 50(a) that a motion for directed verdict shall state the specific grounds therefor is mandatory, “the courts need not inflexibly enforce the rule when the grounds for the motion are apparent to the court and the parties.”

Rule 50(a) requires denial of a directed verdict when more than a scintilla of evidence supports each element of the plaintiff’s prima facie case, viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.

Wallace Ex Rel. Magers v. Evans · filed 1982-12-21Rule 50(a)

Settled principles establish that 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 and to support a verdict for plaintiffs; that in determining such a motion the evidence should be considered in the light most favorable to plaintiffs, and the plaintiffs should be given the benefit of all reasonable inferences; and that the motion should be denied if there is any evidence more than a scintilla to support plaintiffs’ prima facie case in all its constituent elements.

Rule 50(a) requires a party moving for a directed verdict to state specific grounds; appellate courts consider only grounds stated at trial.

La Grenade v. Gordon · filed 1983-02-15Rule 50(a)

The moving party must state the specific grounds for his ... directed verdict motion, G.S. 1A-1, Rule 50(a), and our appellate courts will not consider grounds other than those stated at trial upon reviewing a trial court’s ruling on a Rule 50(a) motion.

Appellate review of a directed verdict is usually limited to the grounds the movant asserted when making the motion before the trial judge.

Warren v. Canal Industries, Inc. · filed 1983-03-15Rule 50(a)

On review of a directed verdict, appellate review is usually limited to those grounds asserted by the movant upon making his motion before the trial judge.

Rule 50(a) permits any party to move for a directed verdict at the close of all the evidence.

Mas Corp. v. Thompson · filed 1983-05-03Rule 50(a)

Any party may move for a directed verdict at the close of all the evidence. G.S. 1A-1, Rule 50(a).

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, viewing the evidence and reasonable inferences in the plaintiff’s favor.

Cunningham v. Brown · filed 1983-05-17Rule 50(a)

Settled principles establish that 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 and to support a verdict for plaintiffs; that in determining such a motion the evidence should be considered in the light most favorable to plaintiffs, and the plaintiffs should be given the benefit of all reasonable inferences; and that the motion should be denied if there is any evidence more than a scintilla to support plaintiffs’ prima facie case in all its constituent elements.

Rule 50(a) permits a directed verdict when the plaintiff’s evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and given every reasonable inference, is insufficient for submission to the jury.

Libby Hill Seafood Restaurants, Inc. v. Owens · filed 1983-06-21Rule 50(a)

Upon motion for directed verdict made by defendants, the question before the Court is whether the evidence offered by plaintiff, when considered in the light most favorable to plaintiff and allowed the benefit of every reasonable inference which may be drawn therefrom, is insufficient as a matter of law for submission to the jury.

Rule 50(a) requires the court to view the plaintiff’s evidence favorably and deny a defendant’s directed-verdict motion unless the plaintiff cannot recover under any reasonable view of the facts.

Tice v. Hall · filed 1983-07-05Rule 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, plaintiff’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. 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.

On a Rule 50(a) motion for directed verdict, the court views the evidence, evidentiary conflicts, and reasonable inferences in the nonmovant’s favor.

Church v. First Union National Bank of North Carolina · filed 1983-07-19Rule 50(a)

On a G.S. 1A-1, Rule 50(a) motion for a directed verdict, 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 drawn in his favor.

Rule 50(a) requires a directed verdict motion to state specific grounds; failing to do so leaves the denial unpreserved for appellate review.

Oxendine v. Moss · filed 1983-09-20Rule 50(a)

Although plaintiff’s complaint alleged and plaintiff’s evidence tended to support two separate theories of recovery for his services, i.e., work performed and an account stated, defendants, the moving party, failed to state to the trial court any specific grounds for their motion for a directed verdict, as required by G.S. 1A-1, Rule 50(a) of the Rules of Civil Procedure. Under such circumstances, defendants have failed to preserve the trial court’s denial of their motion for our review.

Rule 50(a) requires a motion for a directed verdict to state specific grounds.

Browne v. Macaulay · filed 1983-12-20Rule 50(a)

We note that, in clear violation of the provisions of G.S. § 1A-1, Rule 50(a) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, no specific grounds for the motion were stated by defendants. While plaintiff did not object to this deficiency, and we must therefore pass upon the trial court’s ruling, we are constrained to note that this deficiency on such motions is not rare and that such lack of compliance with the rule unduly complicates the process of appellate review.

A Rule 50(a) directed verdict motion tests whether the evidence can support a verdict for the plaintiff; the court takes the plaintiff’s evidence as true and draws reasonable inferences in the plaintiff’s favor.

Troy v. Todd · filed 1984-04-17Rule 50(a)

It is well established that a defendant’s 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 defendant’s motion for a directed verdict, plaintiffs evidence must be taken as true and all the evidence must be considered in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, giving him the benefit of every reasonable inference to be drawn therefrom.”

A motion for directed verdict must state its specific grounds; a ground omitted from the motion cannot be raised on appeal.

Lee v. Keck · filed 1984-05-15Rule 50(a)

When a specific ground is not stated in the original motion, it cannot be raised on appeal.

Rule 50(a) permits a directed verdict motion whose grounds are apparent from the record when the opposing party did not object to how the grounds were stated.

Pleasant v. Johnson · filed 1984-07-03Rule 50(a)

No objection to the sufficiency of the grounds appears in the record, however; and the import of the motion plainly appears from the Answer, an earlier appeal, and the pretrial order. Pleasant’s argument is thus without merit.

Rule 50(a) permits a directed verdict for a defendant only when the plaintiff’s evidence is legally insufficient, viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff with every reasonable inference.

Haney v. Alexander · filed 1984-12-18Rule 50(a)

Plaintiffs assignment of error raises the single question of whether the trial court properly directed a verdict for defendant under G.S. 1A-1, Rule 50(a). A directed verdict for defendant is proper only if plaintiffs evidence is insufficient as a matter of law to support his claim. In ruling on defendant’s motion for directed verdict, the trial court must consider the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff and give plaintiff the benefit of every reasonable inference.

Rule 50(a) does not permit a directed verdict when the evidence allows reasonable competing inferences and credibility remains in issue.

Summerlin v. National Service Industries, Inc. · filed 1985-02-05Rule 50(a)

In short, since marriage alone does not create an agency relationship, and since the evidence does not so clearly establish the facts in issue that no reasonable inference to the contrary can be drawn, a directed verdict was inappropriate as credibility remained an issue.

Rule 50(a) does not require a directed verdict motion to state specific grounds when the issue is identified and the grounds are apparent to the court and the parties.

Smith v. Price · filed 1985-05-07Rule 50(a)

While the better practice is to state specific grounds for a directed verdict motion, it is not necessary where, as here, the issue is identified and the grounds for the motion are apparent to the court and the parties.

Rule 50(a) requires a directed verdict motion to state its grounds, but the court may consider the merits when the grounds are obvious.

Herbert v. Babson · filed 1985-05-07Rule 50(a)

In making the motion for a directed verdict the appellants did not state the grounds therefor contrary to the requirement of G.S. 1A-1, Rule 50(a). It was obviously made on the ground of the insufficiency of the appellees’ evidence. We shall consider the appeal on its merits.

Rule 50 requires a motion for directed verdict to state its grounds; otherwise, error cannot be urged on appeal.

Hall v. Mabe · filed 1985-11-19Rule 50

A motion for directed verdict must state the grounds therefor; otherwise, error may not be urged on appeal.

A motion for directed verdict must state its grounds, and a ground omitted in the trial court cannot be raised on appeal.

Broyhill v. Coppage · filed 1986-02-04Rule 50(a)

A motion for directed verdict must state the grounds therefor, G.S. 1A-1, R. Civ. P. 50(a), and grounds not asserted in the trial court may not be asserted on appeal.

A party preserves a directed-verdict issue for review by timely stating the grounds for the motion, timely moving for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, and properly appealing and briefing the issue.

Hornby v. Pennsylvania National Mutual Casualty Insurance · filed 1985-10-15

Penn timely moved for a directed verdict on the issue of punitive damages and stated the specific grounds therefor, and excepted to, and assigned as error, the denial of its motion. After the verdict was returned, Penn made a timely motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and immediately gave notice of appeal when the motion was denied. Penn brought forward this assignment of error and presented the arguments and authorities on which it relies in its brief. Such actions were clearly adequate to preserve this issue for review.

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

Hitchcock v. Cullerton · filed 1986-08-05Rule 50(a)

The purpose of a motion for a directed verdict is to test the legal sufficiency of the evidence. ... The evidence must be taken in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.

Rule 50 requires courts deciding a directed verdict motion to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, resolving conflicts and drawing reasonable inferences in that party’s favor.

United Laboratories, Inc. v. Kuykendall · filed 1988-07-28Rule 50

Upon a motion for a directed verdict, pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 1A-1, Rule 50 (1983), the evidence must be considered in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, resolving all conflicts in his favor, and giving him the benefit of all reasonable inferences flowing from the evidence in his favor.

Rule 50 requires the court to deny a directed verdict motion when the non-moving party presents more than a scintilla of evidence.

McFetters v. McFetters · filed 1990-04-17Rule 50

If, however, non-movant shows more than a scintilla of evidence, the court must deny the motion.

Rule 50(a) requires a court deciding a directed verdict motion to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmovant and determine whether it is sufficient to reach a jury.

Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. West · filed 1990-11-20Rule 50(a)

Where a party moves for a directed verdict, the trial court must determine whether the evidence, when considered in the light most favorable to the nonmovant, is sufficient to take the case to the jury.

Rule 50 does not permit a directed verdict for the defendant on contributory negligence when a reasonable juror could find that the plaintiff exercised ordinary care.

Price v. Jack Eckerd Corp. · filed 1990-12-04Rule 50

On these facts, a reasonable juror could find either way. ... Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court directing verdict for the defendant is vacated, and the case is remanded for a new trial.

Rule 50 requires the court to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and permits a directed verdict only when the evidence cannot support a verdict for that party.

Wolfe v. Burke · filed 1990-12-18Rule 50

In determining a motion for a directed verdict pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 50 (1990), the trial court must “consider all the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. A directed verdict may be granted only if, as a matter of law, the evidence is insufficient to justify a verdict for the nonmovant.”

Rule 50(a) permits a directed verdict for a defendant only when the plaintiff’s evidence, viewed favorably to the plaintiff, cannot support recovery as a matter of law.

Shillington v. K-Mart Corp. · filed 1991-03-19Rule 50(a)

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. ... With this rule in mind, we determine whether plaintiff’s evidence is sufficient to take the case to the jury on any of his claims.

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

Kremer v. Food Lion, Inc. · filed 1991-03-19Rule 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.

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

Abernethy Ex Rel. Abernethy v. Spartan Food Systems, Inc. · filed 1991-06-04(a)

A motion by 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.

Rule 50 governs directed verdict motions and permits them only when the evidence is legally insufficient to support a verdict for the nonmoving party.

Wilson v. Pearce · filed 1992-01-21Rule 50

Under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 50, a motion for directed verdict “tests the legal sufficiency of the evidence to take .the case to the jury and support a verdict for the plaintiff.”

Rule 50 requires a trial court considering a directed verdict motion to view the evidence favorably to the nonmoving party and grant the motion only when the evidence cannot legally support a verdict for that party.

Olvera v. Charles Z. Flack Agency, Inc. · filed 1992-05-05

In determining a motion for a directed verdict pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 50 (1990), the trial court must “consider all the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. A directed verdict may be granted only if, as a matter of law, the evidence is insufficient to justify a verdict for the nonmovant.”

Rule 50(a) permits a trial judge to direct a verdict when the opposing party's evidence is legally insufficient to go to the jury.

Matter of Will of Jarvis · filed 1992-07-21(a)

The question whether in a caveat proceeding a judge may decide, upon propounders’ motion for directed verdict pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 1A-1, Rule 50(a), that caveators’ evidence on a contested issue is legally insufficient to go to the jury has not been specifically addressed since enactment of the Rules of Civil Procedure in 1967. We hold that the trial court may direct a verdict for propounders in a caveat proceeding at the close of all evidence, ... where appropriate; and the court in this case properly directed a verdict on the issues of due execution, mental capacity and undue influence.

Rule 50(a) permits a directed verdict for a defendant when the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, establishes the defendant’s defense as a matter of law.

Goodwin v. Investors Life Insurance Co. of North America · filed 1992-09-04Rule 50(a)

It is fundamental law that a motion by a defendant for a directed verdict under N.C.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. A defendant is not entitled to a directed verdict or a judgment notwithstanding the verdict unless the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, establishes its defense as a matter of law.

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

Phillips ex rel. Schultz v. Holland · filed 1992-10-20Rule 50(a)

It is well established that a defendant’s motion for 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.

Rule 50(a) requires denial of a defendant’s motion for directed verdict when the evidence, viewed in the plaintiff’s favor, could reasonably support a verdict for the plaintiff.

Moss v. J. C. Bradford & Co. · filed 1993-07-06Rule 50(a)

From the foregoing evidence, the jury could reasonably have concluded that in liquidating plaintiffs’ accounts, defendants breached the terms of the customer agreement. Accordingly, we hold that the trial court properly denied defendants’ motions for directed verdict and motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, or in the alternative, a new trial.

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

Crane v. Caldwell · filed 1994-01-18(a)

A motion by the defendant for a directed verdict pursuant to 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(a) requires a directed verdict motion to state specific grounds, but failure to do so does not automatically require reversal when the grounds are apparent to the court and parties.

In re the Will of Jones · filed 1994-05-17Rule 50(a)

First, while Rule 50(a) requires that a motion for directed verdict state specific grounds for the motion, failure to state such grounds is not a basis for an automatic reversal of the directed verdict on appeal.

Rule 50 permits a directed verdict when the evidence, viewed favorably to the plaintiff, is legally insufficient to support a verdict.

PEAL BY PEAL v. Smith · filed 1994-06-21Rule 50

Pursuant to N.C.Gen.Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 50, a party is entitled to a directed verdict where the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, is insufficient as a matter of law to support a verdict in his favor. A directed verdict is not properly allowed unless it appears that a recovery cannot be had by plaintiff upon any view of the facts which the evidence tends to establish.

A directed verdict motion must state its grounds specifically; an appellate court will not consider a ground omitted from the motion at trial.

Stacy v. Jedco Construction, Inc. · filed 1995-06-06Rule 50(a)

The grounds for the motion must be specifically stated, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 50(a), and an appellate court will not consider grounds other than those stated to the trial court in reviewing the trial court’s ruling on the motion. ... However, at trial, Jedco did not offer Mr. Purser’s status as a ground for its motion for directed verdict and is, therefore, precluded from making the argument for the first time on appeal.

A motion for directed verdict must state its grounds, and a ground omitted in the trial court cannot be raised on appeal.

Smith v. Carolina Coach Co. · filed 1995-09-05Rule 50(a)

Defendant cannot assert this on appeal because it failed to raise this issue before the trial court on its motions for directed verdict and judgment notwithstanding the verdict. See Broyhill v. Coppage, 79 N.C. App. 221, 225, 339 S.E.2d 32, 36 (1986) (a motion for directed verdict must state the grounds therefor, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 50(a), and grounds not asserted in the trial court may not be asserted on appeal).

Rule 50(a) requires a directed verdict motion to identify the grounds for a later JNOV motion; if the motion does not identify an issue specifically, the party must raise it in supporting argument.

Lassiter v. English · filed 1997-06-17Rule 50(a)

The directed verdict motion “shall state the specific grounds” upon which the motion lies. N.C.G.S. § 1A-1, Rule 50(a) (1990). ... Because proximate cause was not specifically raised by the plaintiff to support his directed verdict motion, the motion cannot, therefore, support entry of JNOV for the plaintiff on the basis of proximate cause.

Rule 50 does not permit a directed verdict when conflicting evidence presents contested issues of fact.

Brewer v. Cabarrus Plastics, Inc. · filed 1998-09-15Rule 50

A directed verdict is not proper when there is conflicting evidence on contested issues of fact.

Rule 50(a) requires a directed verdict motion to be evaluated for the legal sufficiency of the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmovant.

Winston v. Brodie · filed 1999-07-20Rule 50(a)

A motion for directed verdict under Rule 50(a) “tests the legal sufficiency of the evidence, considered in the light most favorable to the nonmovant, to take the case to the jury.”

Rule 50(a) requires the trial court to decide whether the evidence, viewed favorably to the plaintiff, is sufficient to submit the case to the jury.

Wilburn v. Honeycutt · filed 1999-10-19(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) requires a court deciding a directed-verdict motion to view the evidence in the plaintiff’s favor and determine whether it is sufficient for the case to go to the jury.

Medlin v. Fyco, Inc. · filed 2000-08-15(a)

The question presented by a defendant’s motion for directed verdict pursuant to G.S. § 1A-1, Rule 50(a) is whether the evidence, considered in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, was sufficient to take the case to the jury and to support a verdict for the plaintiff.

Rule 50(a) tests whether the plaintiff’s evidence is sufficient for jury submission; an assignment of error to the refusal to submit an issue can encompass a directed verdict on that issue.

McNeill v. Holloway · filed 2000-12-19Rule 50(a)

A motion for a directed verdict pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 50(a) “presents the question of whether plaintiff’s evidence is sufficient to submit to the jury.” ... We therefore find that plaintiff’s assignment of error to the trial court’s refusal to submit an issue of punitive damages to the jury encompasses the trial court’s grant, during the jury charge conference, of defendant’s motion for a directed verdict on the issue of punitive damages.

Rule 50(a) allows a directed verdict motion to test whether the evidence is legally sufficient for the case to go to the jury.

Chapel Hill Cinemas, Inc. v. Robbins · filed 2001-06-05(a)

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

Rule 50(a) requires a party to state the specific grounds for a directed-verdict motion, and appellate review is limited to those grounds.

Jones v. GMRI, Inc. · filed 2001-07-03Rule 50(a)

G.S. § 1A-1, Rule 50(a) provides that a party must state the specific grounds for its motion for directed verdict. In reviewing a ruling on a motion for directed verdict on appeal, our scope of review is limited to those grounds asserted by the moving party before the trial court.

Rule 50(a) requires a motion for directed verdict to state the specific grounds for the motion.

Crist v. Crist · filed 2001-08-07Rule 50(a)

A “motion for a directed verdict shall state the specific grounds therefor.” N.C.G.S. § 1A-1, Rule 50(a).

Rule 50 permits a directed verdict for a defendant only when the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, is insufficient for submission to the jury.

Swinson v. Lejeune Motor Company, Inc. · filed 2001-12-18Rule 50

To grant a directed verdict for a defendant under N.C. Gen.Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 50, the trial court must determine that the evidence, when considered in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, was insufficient for submission to the jury.

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

Barber v. Presbyterian Hospital · filed 2001-11-06(a)

A motion for a directed verdict by a defendant pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 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(a) permits a directed verdict when the evidence, viewed in the plaintiff’s favor, fails to establish a prima facie case or right to relief.

B & F SLOSMAN v. Sonopress, Inc. · filed 2001-12-28Rule 50(a)

Accordingly, a defendant is not entitled to a directed verdict unless the court, after viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the plaintiff, determines the plaintiff has failed to establish a prima facie case or right to relief.

Rule 50(a) requires a trial court ruling on a directed verdict to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.

Alexander v. Alexander · filed 2002-08-06Rule 50(a)

Moreover, our Supreme Court has held that when ruling on a motion for directed verdict pursuant to N.C. Gen.Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 50(a) (2001), the trial court must consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.

Rule 50(a) requires denial of a directed verdict when sufficient evidence on each element presents a question for the jury.

Lancaster v. Maple Street Homeowners Ass'n, Inc. · filed 2003-03-18Rule 50(a)

We hold that the trial court did not err in denying plaintiffs’ motion for a directed verdict. Defendant presented sufficient evidence of each element of adverse possession to survive a motion for directed verdict.

A directed verdict at the close of the plaintiff’s evidence is proper only if the evidence, taken as true and viewed with reasonable inferences in the plaintiff’s favor, cannot support a verdict for the plaintiff.

Brotherton v. THE POINT ON NORMAN, LLC · filed 2003-03-18Rule 50(a)

Defendant’s motion for a directed verdict should only be granted at the close of the plaintiff’s evidence when plaintiff is given the benefit of every reasonable inference to be drawn from the evidence and the evidence is: (1) taken as true, (2) regarded in a light most favorable to the plaintiff, and (3) “insufficient to support a verdict in the plaintiff’s favor.” ... The trial court erred in granting The Point’s motion for a directed verdict at the end of plaintiffs’ evidence.

Rule 50(a) requires a motion for a directed verdict to state its specific grounds; appellate review is limited to the grounds stated to the trial court.

Williams v. Davis · filed 2003-05-20Rule 50(a)

Also, “an appellate court will not consider grounds other than those stated to the trial court in reviewing the trial court’s ruling on the motion.”

A directed verdict should be denied when the evidence viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party is sufficient for a jury to find in that party’s favor.

Kindred of North Carolina, Inc. v. Bond · filed 2003-09-02Rule 50(a)

Given the factual nature of this determination and the standard of viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff, the trial court was correct in denying defendants’ motion for directed verdict as there was enough evidence for the jury to believe that Ms. Kindred was justified in relying on the financial statement.

In a will caveat proceeding, caveators may not obtain a directed verdict on undue influence before the close of all the evidence.

In Re Will of Smith · filed 2003-08-05Rule 50

In consideration of the above discussion, a motion on the issue of undue influence is inappropriate by caveators at this early stage in the proceedings. Therefore, the trial court erred in directing a verdict for caveators on the issue of undue influence prior to the close of all the evidence in the caveat proceeding.

On a Rule 50(a) motion for a directed verdict, the court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, resolving conflicts and drawing reasonable inferences in that party's favor.

Leonard v. Tant · filed 2007-08-07Rule 50(a)

Upon a motion for a directed verdict, pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 1A-1, Rule 50 (1983), the evidence must be considered in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, resolving all conflicts in his favor, and giving him the benefit of all reasonable inferences flowing from the evidence in his favor.

Rule 50(a) requires a directed verdict motion to state its specific grounds, but a court may review a motion whose grounds were apparent to the court and the parties.

J.T. Russell & Sons, Inc. v. Silver Birch Pond L.L.C. · filed 2011-12-06Rule 50(a)

Initially, we note that plaintiff did not make a specific argument in conjunction with its motion for directed verdict. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 50(a) (2009) expressly requires that “[a] motion for a directed verdict shall state the specific grounds therefore.” ... In the instant case, it was clear that the determinative issue was whether plaintiff’s paving job complied with the terms of the paving contract, and thus, we may review the trial court’s ruling in this context.

Rule 50(a) requires a directed verdict motion to state its specific grounds; grounds omitted from that motion cannot support a later motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.

Plasma Centers of America, LLC v. Talecris Plasma Resources, Inc. · filed 2012-08-07Rule 50(a)

“A motion for a directed verdict shall state the specific grounds therefor.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 50(a) (2011). ... Talecris presented no other argument in support of its motion during the directed verdict hearing. Thus, Talecris lacked standing to raise additional issues before the trial court upon its motion for JNOV.

Rule 50(a) requires a directed verdict motion to state specific grounds; a motion that states none does not preserve a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal.

Chalk v. Braakman · filed 2019-03-19Rule 50(a)

Because Plaintiff's motion included no specific grounds, we hold it did not satisfy Rule 50(a) and Plaintiff cannot now appeal as to the insufficiency of the evidence to support the jury's verdict.

Rule 50(a) requires a directed-verdict motion to state specific grounds; a party must object at trial to a failure to do so to raise that issue on appeal.

Walter v. Walter · filed 2020-12-31Rule 50(a)

“A motion for a directed verdict shall state the specific grounds therefor.” ... Still, to preserve the issue for appellate review, a party must object at trial to the failure of the motion to include specific grounds. ... Because Plaintiff failed to raise this objection at trial, he cannot now raise it on appeal.

Rule 50(a) permits a directed-verdict motion at the close of an opponent’s evidence to test whether the evidence is sufficient to submit the case to the jury.

Nichols v. Calhoun · filed 2025-09-03Rule 50(a)

A motion for directed verdict, which is made “at the close of the evidence offered by an opponent,” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 50(a) (2023), “test[s] the legal sufficiency of the evidence to take the case to the jury[,]” Snead v. Holloman, 101 N.C. App. 462, 464, 400 S.E.2d 91, 92 (1991).

Rule 50(a) permits a directed verdict when the evidence, viewed in the nonmoving party’s favor, fails to establish an essential element of the claim.

Fields v. Rana · filed 2025-09-17Rule 50(a)

Since Plaintiff failed to introduce any evidence of an essential element of her negligence claim—proximate cause—the trial court appropriately granted Defendant’s motion for directed verdict.

Rule 50 requires the court to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party when deciding directed verdict and JNOV motions.

Burchette v. Lynch · filed 2000-08-29

In the light most favorable to plaintiff, ... the evidence thus indicates plaintiff, unlike the plaintiff in McKinnon, slowed and applied her brakes immediately upon seeing the headlights of the approaching vehicle. We therefore cannot say her actions constituted contributory negligence as a matter of law, ... and the trial court did not err in denying defendant’s directed verdict and JNOV motions asserting that argument.

Rule 52(a)(2) generally requires findings of fact on a motion only when a party requests them.

Couch v. Bradley · filed 2006-10-17Rule 52(a)(2)

Defendant failed to request specific findings of fact pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 52(a)(2). In the absence of a motion or request, the trial court properly entered an order allowing judgment against defendant without making specific findings of facts.

Rule 52 permits a party to challenge on appeal whether the evidence supports the trial court’s findings of fact.

Little v. Little · filed 1970-09-16

Where the trial court finds the facts, it is the rule in North Carolina that the question of the sufficiency of the evidence to support the findings may he raised on appeal. See G.S. 1A-1, Rule 52 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Rule 52(a)(1) is satisfied when a court’s conclusions of law appear in answers to stipulated issues and are readily distinguishable from its findings of fact.

Jackson Ex Rel. Jackson v. Collins · filed 1970-10-21Rule 52(a)(1)

This contention is without merit. The parties stipulated that the court could answer specific issues as to negligence and damage. ... In the instant case Judge Brewer made detailed findings of fact and stated that his answers to the issues were based thereon. Obviously, the court’s conclusions of law are contained in the answers to the issues, and are readily distinguishable from the findings of fact.

Rule 52(a)(1) requires a judge trying a case without a jury to make findings of fact and separate conclusions of law.

Thorne v. Thorne · filed 1970-12-16Rule 52(a)(1)

The trial court’s statement that the father is “not unfit” is neither a proper finding of fact nor conclusion of law. It is the duty of the judge to make findings of fact and from those findings to make conclusions of law.

Rule 52(a)(2) does not call for findings of fact and conclusions of law when a judge rules on a motion for a directed verdict.

Walker v. Pless · filed 1971-04-28Rule 52(a)(2)

Upon the request of plaintiff, the trial judge, purportedly acting in accordance with G.S. 1A-1, Rule 52(a) (2), made separate “Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law” and in another instrument entered a “Judgment on Directed Verdict.” In ruling on defendant’s motion for a directed verdict in this case, it was not essential or appropriate that the judge make “Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.”

Rule 52(a)(1) requires a district judge deciding child custody and support to find the facts specially and state conclusions of law separately.

Austin v. Austin · filed 1971-09-15Rule 52(a)(1)

Chapter 7A does not change the effect of G.S. 1A-1, Rule 52(a) (1), and therefore, it is necessary for the district judge who is authorized to hear a case involving the custody and support of minor children to find the facts specially and state separately his conclusions of law before entering an appropriate judgment.

Under Rule 52(a)(1), a trial court’s findings resolving conflicts in the evidence after a trial without a jury bind appellate courts.

Blackwell v. Butts · filed 1971-05-12Rule 52(a)(1)

There is no difference in this respect in the trial of an action upon the facts without a jury under Rule 52(a) (1) and a trial upon waiver of jury trial under former G.S. 1-185. Findings of fact made by the court which resolve conflicts in the evidence are binding on appellate courts.

Rule 52 permits a party to challenge on appeal whether the evidence supports the trial court’s findings of fact.

Brooks v. Brooks · filed 1971-11-17

It is the rule in North Carolina where the trial court finds the facts that the question of the sufficiency of the evidence to support the findings may be raised on appeal. See G.S. 1A-1, Rule 52 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Rule 52(a)(1) requires specific findings of fact and separate conclusions of law in a nonjury trial; an alimony award requires findings on dependency and ability to pay.

Smith v. Smith · filed 1972-06-28Rule 52(a)(1)

G.S. 1A-1, Rule 52(a)(1) provides: “In all actions tried upon the facts without a jury or with an advisory jury, the court shall find the facts specially and state separately its conclusions of law thereon and direct the entry of the appropriate judgment.” Among other things the trial court made insufficent findings as to plaintiff being a dependent spouse and the ability of defendant to make the alimony payments imposed.

Rule 52 requires a court trying facts without a jury to make specific findings of fact and separate conclusions of law; a judgment without adequate findings does not comply.

Littlejohn v. Hamrick · filed 1972-08-02Rule 52

The judgment entered in this case does not comply with Rule 52 of the Rules of Civil Procedure (G.S. 1A-1, Rule 52).

Rule 52(a)(1)’s requirement to state findings of fact and conclusions of law separately can be satisfied by substantial compliance in a child custody and support order.

Medlin v. Medlin · filed 1973-03-14Rule 52(a)(1)

Defendant contends the trial court failed to “find the facts specially and state separately its conclusions of law thereon” as required by G.S. 1A-1, Rule 52(a) (1). We hold that while it would have been better if the court had been more specific in stating its findings of fact and conclusions of law, there was substantial compliance with applicable statutes.

Rule 52’s findings-of-fact requirement does not invalidate a valid consent judgment.

Haddock v. Waters · filed 1973-07-25Rule 52

In their sole assignment of error, defendants contend the judgment appealed from is invalid for the reason that the court did not make findings of fact as required by G.S. 1A-1, Rule 52. ... Absent a showing that defendants’ attorney of record at the trial was without authority to make the tender of judgment, we hold that the judgment based on the tender is valid as a consent judgment.

Rule 52(a)(1) requires a judge hearing a case without a jury to make specific findings of fact and separate conclusions of law.

Finley v. Williams · filed 1974-10-16Rule 52(a)(1)

Since the case was heard by the court without-a jury, it was incumbent upon it to “find the facts specially and. state separately its conclusions of law thereon and direct the ... entry of the appropriate judgment” as provided by Rule 52 (a)(1).

Rule 52 requires a judge trying a case without a jury to make special findings of fact and separate conclusions of law that resolve the issues raised by the pleadings and evidence.

Davis v. Vintage Enterprises, Inc. · filed 1974-11-20Rule 52

When the judge tries a case without a jury, he must find the facts specially and state separately his conclusions of law ... and thereby determine the issues raised by the pleadings and the evidence. G.S. 1A-1, Rule 52, Rules of Civil Procedure. When this is done, the appellate court can review the case to determine whether there is competent evidence in the record to support the facts found and whether the judge correctly applied to those facts the appropriate legal principles. Suffice it to say, the findings and conclusions made by the trial judge in this case do not properly determine the issues raised by the pleadings and the evidence.

In a nonjury trial, Rule 52(a)(1) requires specific findings of fact and separate conclusions of law, but does not require the judge to submit factual issues to himself as though to a jury.

Hartley v. Ballou · filed 1974-11-26Rule 52(a)(1)

G.S. 1A-1, Rule 52(a) (1), provides: “In all actions tried upon the facts without a jury or with an advisory jury, the court shall find the facts specially and state separately its conclusions of law thereon and direct the entry of the appropriate judgment.” The rule does not require or contemplate that the court submit to itself issues of fact in the manner in which issues of fact are submitted to a jury.

Rule 52(a)(1) requires the trial court to find the facts specially.

Brewer v. Davis · filed 1974-04-17Rule 52(a)(1)

In the present case, the trial court found “the facts specially,” as required by G.S. 1A-1, Rule 52(a) (1).

Section 1A-1, Rule 52(a)(2) does not require findings of fact on a Rule 60(b)(1) motion unless a party requests them.

Haiduven v. Cooper · filed 1974-09-18Rule 52(a)(2)

Had he been requested to do so, it would have been error for the judge not to have found the facts, ... but absent a request he was not required to do so. G.S. 1A-1, Rule 52(a) (2).

Rule 52(a) requires a court trying facts without a jury to make specific factual findings, separately state legal conclusions, and enter the appropriate judgment.

Luther v. Hauser · filed 1974-12-04Rule 52(a)

Thus, it seems clear that “[i]n cases in which the trial court passes on the facts, the court is required ‘ “to do three things in writing: (1) To find the facts on all issues of fact joined on the pleadings; (2) to declare the conclusions of law arising on the facts found; and (3) to enter judgment accordingly.” . . . ’ ”

Rule 52 requires a trial court deciding facts to make written findings of fact, state conclusions of law, and enter judgment accordingly.

Campbell v. Blount · filed 1975-01-02

In cases in which the trial court passes' on the facts, the court is required to do three things in writing: find the facts on all issues of fact joined on the pleadings; declare the conclusions of law arising on the facts found; and enter judgment accordingly.

Rule 52(a)(1) requires the court in nonjury actions to find the facts specially, state its conclusions of law separately, and direct the appropriate judgment.

Hinson v. Jefferson · filed 1975-06-06(a)(1)

G.S. 1A-1, Rule 52(a) (1) provides that “[i]n all actions tried upon the facts without a jury or with an advisory jury, the court shall find the facts specially and state separately its conclusions of law thereon and direct the entry of the appropriate judgment.” (Emphasis supplied.)

Rule 52(a)(1) requires a court in a nonjury trial to specially find the facts, separately state its conclusions of law, and direct entry of the appropriate judgment.

Fitch v. Fitch · filed 1975-07-16Rule 52(a)(1)

G.S. 1A-1, Rule 52(a) (1), in pertinent part, provides that in non jury trials “the court shall find the facts specially and state separately its conclusions of law thereon and direct the entry of the appropriate judgment.” Here the trial court did not direct that any conclusions of law be placed in the order nor did the court issue any other orders. We conclude judgment was not in fact rendered until the entry of the order of 31 January 1975, which both parties agree was properly signed by the judge and entered.

Rule 52(c) allows a party to challenge on appeal whether the evidence supports the trial court’s findings of fact without first objecting to the findings or seeking to amend them.

Whitaker v. Earnhardt · filed 1976-01-29(c)

The plain language of our Rule 52 (c) and the interpretation placed upon their rule by the Federal Courts leads us to conclude that defendant’s failure to except to the findings of the trial judge did not necessarily preclude appellate review on the question of whether the evidence supported the findings of fact.

Rule 52(a)(1) requires a bench trial court to make findings on all pleaded factual issues, state its legal conclusions separately, and enter the appropriate judgment.

Traber v. Crawford · filed 1976-03-17(a)(1)

In actions tried upon the facts without a jury the trial judge is required to make findings of fact and conclusions of law. G.S. 1A-1, Rule 52(a) (1) directs the court to “find the facts specially and state separately its conclusions of law thereon and direct entry of the appropriate judgment.”

Rule 52(a)(1) requires a judge trying facts without a jury to make special factual findings, state separate legal conclusions, and direct entry of the appropriate judgment.

HEATING & AIR COND. ASSOC., INC. v. Myerly · filed 1976-04-07Rule 52(a)(1)

Rule 52(a)(1) provides that: "In all actions tried upon the facts without a jury . . . the court shall find the facts specially and state separately its conclusions of law thereon and direct the entry of the appropriate judgment."

Rule 52(a)(2) requires findings of fact and conclusions of law only when a statute requires them or a party requests them.

Sherwood v. Sherwood · filed 1976-04-07(a)(2)

The court is required to make findings of fact and conclusions of law on this motion “only when required by statute ... or requested by a party.” G.S. 1A-1, Rule 52(a) (2).

Rule 52(a) requires a judge in a nonjury trial to find the facts and state separate conclusions of law.

Beasley-Kelso Associates, Inc. v. Tenney · filed 1976-10-06(a)

Under G.S. 1A-1, Rule 52(a), the court, where the action is tried upon the facts without a jury, is required to find the facts and state separately his conclusions of law thereon.

Rule 52 requires findings of fact and conclusions of law in nonjury trials, while findings on a motion are required only when a party requests them as provided by Rule 41(b).

Board of Transportation v. Williams · filed 1976-10-06Rule 52(a)(1), (a)(2)

We think the nonapplicability of this rule to this situation is too obvious to merit discussion. Findings of fact and conclusions of law are required upon entry of an order on a motion only when requested by a party and as provided by Rule 41(b), which is not applicable here. G.S. 1A-1, Rule 52(a) (2). Defendants made no request for findings of fact or conclusions of law.

Rule 52(a)(1) requires specific findings of fact and separately stated conclusions of law in child custody and support judgments.

Montgomery v. Montgomery · filed 1977-01-05Rule 52(a)(1)

In a proceeding for custody and support of a minor child, the trial court is required to “find the facts specially and state separately its conclusions of law thereon and direct the entry of appropriate judgment.” G.S. 1A-1, Rule 52(a) (1).

Rule 52(a)(1) requires a trial judge in a bench trial to make special findings of fact, separately state conclusions of law, and enter the appropriate judgment.

Powell v. Bost · filed 1977-02-02Rule 52(a)(1)

In an action tried without a jury it is the duty of the trial judge to find the facts specially, state separately its conclusions of law, and enter the appropriate judgment. G.S. 1A-1, Rule 52(a) (1).

Rule 52(a)(1) requires a nonjury court to find facts specially and state its legal conclusions separately, but no prejudice results when the findings and conclusions permit appellate review.

Waters v. Humphrey · filed 1977-05-04Rule 52(a)(1)

Under these circumstances, plaintiffs suffered no prejudice because of the court’s failure to comply strictly with the directive of Rule 52(a) (1) to “state separately its conclusions of law.”

Rule 52(a)(1) requires a court in a nonjury action to make special factual findings, separately state legal conclusions, and direct entry of the proper judgment; less detailed findings suffice when ultimate facts are undisputed and no additional findings were requested.

O'Grady v. First Union National Bank · filed 1978-02-21(a)(1)

While it would have been better form for the trial court to have stated its findings and conclusions in more detail, such a technical defect is not reversible error when the ultimate facts were not in dispute, and a request for additional findings had not been made. A purpose of Rule 52(a)(1) is to assist the appellate courts in determining whether or not the trial court correctly found the facts and applied the law to them. ... The judgment before us is sufficient to meet the mandate of Rule 52(a)(1).

Rule 52(a)(2) does not require findings of fact and conclusions of law for a summary judgment decision, and findings made do not invalidate the judgment.

Mosley v. National Finance Co., Inc. · filed 1978-04-18(a)(2)

A trial judge is not required to make finding of fact and conclusions of law in determining a motion for summary judgment, and if he does make some, they are disregarded on appeal. ... Rule 52(a)(2) does not apply to the decision on a summary judgment motion because, if findings of fact are necessary to resolve an issue, summary judgment is improper. However, such findings and conclusions do not render a summary judgment void or voidable and may be helpful, if the facts are not at issue and support the judgment.

Rule 52(a)(2) does not require findings of fact and conclusions of law on a motion unless a party requests them.

Telerent Leasing Corp. v. Equity Associates, Inc. · filed 1978-06-20Rule 52(a)(2)

The trial court was under no duty to make findings of fact and conclusions of law on this motion absent request by a party. G.S. 1A-1, Rule 52(a)(2).

Rule 52(a)(2) does not require the trial court to make findings of fact absent a request, although doing so is better practice.

Texas Western Financial Corp. v. Mann · filed 1978-05-16Rule 52(a)(2)

However, absent a request it was not required to do so, G.S. 1A-1, Rule 52(a)(2), although it would have been better practice to have done so.

Rule 52(c) preserves appellate review of a trial court’s exclusion of evidence without requiring an exception to the court’s findings of fact.

In re Foreclosure of Property of Hill · filed 1978-06-20(c)

Under these circumstances respondents were not required to take exception to the findings of fact in order to insure appellate review of the trial court’s exclusion of the evidence which they sought to introduce. See G.S. 1A-1, Rule 52(c); Whitaker v. Earnhardt, 289 N.C. 260, 221 S.E. 2d 316 (1976); 9 Wright and Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2581 (1971).

Rule 52(a)(1) requires a court in a juryless trial to make special factual findings and state its legal conclusions separately.

Poag v. Powell, Comr. of Motor Vehicles · filed 1979-01-02(a)(1)

Under G.S. 1A-1, Rule 52(a)(1), in all actions tried without a jury the court is required to “find the facts specially and state separately its conclusions of law thereon.” By its bare finding “[t]hat on the 4th day of September, 1976, the plaintiff was arrested by a law-enforcement officer, Patrolman Ronald Bradley of the Chapel Hill Police Department, upon reasonable grounds, for the offense of operating a motor vehicle upon the public highways while under the influence of intoxicating liquor” the court failed to comply with the statute.

Rule 52(a)(2) does not require findings of fact or conclusions of law when ruling on a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction unless a party requests them.

Holt v. Holt · filed 1979-06-05Rule 52(a)(2)

Indeed, absent a request by a party to do so, the trial court was not required to make findings of fact or conclusions of law in ruling on the motion. G.S. 1A-1, Rule 52(a)(2).

Rule 52(a) does not require a Superior Court judge reviewing an administrative agency decision to make findings of fact as a trial judge would.

In re Appeal of Judicial Review by Arcadia Dairy Farms, Inc. of Regulation 4 NCAC 7.0505 · filed 1979-11-06Rule 52(a)

When the judge of the Superior Court sits as an appellate court to review the decision of an administrative agency pursuant to G.S. 150A-50, the judge is not required to make findings of fact and enter a judgment thereon in the same sense as a trial judge pursuant to G.S. 1A-1, Rule 52(a), of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Rule 52(a)(2) requires findings of fact and conclusions of law on a motion only when a party requests them or Rule 41(b) provides for them.

Georgia Railroad Bank & Trust Co. v. Eways · filed 1980-05-06Rule 52(a)(2)

G.S. 1A-1, Rule 52(a)(2) provides that findings of fact and conclusions of law are necessary on decisions of any motion “only when requested by a party and as provided by Rule 41(b).” The record reveals no such request by either party.

Rule 52(a) requires a trial court sitting without a jury to make specific findings of fact and separate conclusions of law sufficient for appellate review.

Coble v. Coble · filed 1980-07-15Rule 52(a)

Where, as here, the trial court sits without a jury, the judge is required to “find the facts specially and state separately its conclusions of law thereon and direct the entry of the appropriate judgment.” G.S. 1A-1, Rule 52(a); Coggins v. City of Asheville, 278 N.C. 428, 180 S.E. 2d 149 (1971). The purpose of the requirement that the court make findings of those specific facts which support its ultimate disposition of the case is to allow a reviewing court to determine from the record whether the judgment — and the legal conclusions which underlie it — represent a correct application of the law.

Rule 52 requires a judge in a trial without a jury to make findings on material factual issues and state conclusions of law separately.

Rosenthal's Bootery, Inc. v. Shavitz · filed 1980-08-05

The necessity for this requirement is plain: Without such findings and conclusions, the appellate courts cannot determine whether the judge correctly found the facts or applied the law thereto.

Rule 52(a)(2) generally excuses a trial judge from making findings of fact and conclusions of law on a motion unless a party requests them or Rule 41(b) requires them.

Fungaroli v. Fungaroli · filed 1981-04-07(a)(2)

Under G.S. 1A-1, Rule 52(a)(2), the trial judge need not make findings of fact and conclusions of law when making a decision on a motion unless they are requested by a party or required by Rule 41(b) which is not applicable here.

Rule 52 requires findings of fact and conclusions of law on a motion only when a party requests them or Rule 41(b) applies.

Eller v. Coca-Cola Co. · filed 1981-08-18Rule 52(a)(2)

Furthermore, although G.S. 1A-1, Rule 52 does not require the trial court to make findings of fact or conclusions of law on decisions of any motion (unless requested by a party or by Rule 41(b)), we believe the better practice in this case would be to set forth the findings and conclusions on which the court determines its order.

Rule 52(a)(1) requires a court trying a case without a jury to make specific findings of the material ultimate facts needed to support its legal conclusions.

Quick v. Quick · filed 1982-05-04(a)(1)

Rule 52(a) does not, of course, require the trial court to recite in its order all evidentiary facts presented at hearing. The facts required to be found specially are those material and ultimate facts from which it can be determined whether the findings are supported by the evidence and whether they support the conclusions of law reached.

Rule 52(a)(1) requires a trial court to make specific findings of the ultimate facts needed to support its conclusions of law.

FARMERS BANK, ETC. v. Michael T. Brown Distributors · filed 1983-01-11Rule 52(a)(1)

As noted, G.S. 1A-1, Rule 52(a)(1) (1969) requires specific findings of the ultimate facts established by the evidence.

Rule 52(a)(1) requires the trial judge to make specific findings of fact and state conclusions of law separately; a finding that the court retains jurisdiction is unnecessary when jurisdiction is inherent in the custody order.

Matter of Jones · filed 1983-05-03Rule 52(a)(1)

Under G.S. 1A-1, Rule 52(a)(1), the trial judge is required to “find the facts specially and state separately . . . [his] conclusions of law thereon and direct the entry of the appropriate judgment.” ... Our examination of the order here reveals that the trial judge acted properly under the rule.

Rule 52(a)(1) requires findings on the ultimate facts needed to support conclusions of law, not a recitation of evidentiary facts.

Chemical Realty Corp. v. Home Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n of Hollywood · filed 1983-12-06Rule 52(a)(1)

Rule 52(a)(1) does not require recitation of evidentiary facts, but it does require specific findings on the ultimate facts established by the evidence, admissions and stipulations which are determinative of the questions involved in the action and essential to support the conclusions of law reached.

Rule 52 allows a judge to direct counsel to draft proposed findings, conclusions, and a judgment, then adopt them when signed; the judge need not draft or dictate them personally.

Johnson v. Johnson · filed 1984-03-20Rule 52

We do not interpret this rule as requiring the manual drafting of such judgment or oral dictation thereof. The trial judge properly directed the attorney for the defendant to prepare proposed findings and conclusions and draft the judgment, and adopted the judgment as his own when tendered and signed.

Rule 52(a) requires a judge sitting without a jury to make specific factual findings and separate conclusions of law; merely reciting witness testimony does not satisfy the findings requirement.

Matter of Green · filed 1984-04-03(a)

Such verbatim recitations of the testimony of each witness do not constitute findings of fact by the trial judge, because they do not reflect a conscious choice between the conflicting versions of the incident in question which emerged from all the evidence presented. Where, as here, the trial judge sits without a jury, the judge is required to find the facts specially and state separately his conclusions of law thereon and direct entry of the appropriate judgment.

Rule 52(a) requires specific findings of the ultimate facts needed to support the court’s conclusions of law.

Roberts v. Roberts · filed 1984-05-01Rule 52(a)

G.S. 1A-1, Rule 52(a) requires specific findings of the ultimate facts established which are determinative of the questions involved in the action and essential to support the conclusions of law reached.

Rule 52(a) requires findings of the essential facts that support the decision, but does not require a finding on every issue requested.

Fortis Corp. v. Northeast Forest Products · filed 1984-06-05Rule 52(a)

A finding of such essential facts as lay a basis for the decision is sufficient under G.S. 1A-1, Rule 52 (a).

Rule 52 does not require special findings of fact on a motion for declaration of compliance when neither side requests them.

Horne v. Flack · filed 1984-06-05Rule 52(a)(1)-(2)

The hearing involved a motion for declaration of compliance, and neither side requested findings of fact. The court did not have to “find the facts specially.”

Rule 52(a)(1) requires a court sitting as finder of fact to make specific findings and state its conclusions of law separately.

Waynick Construction, Inc. v. York · filed 1984-09-04Rule 52(a)(1)

Its duties as trier of fact were to “find the facts specially and state separately its conclusions of law thereon.” G.S. 1A-1, Rule 52(a)(1). ... The trial court failed to make any conclusions of law in the present case.