Pruitt v. Ray

Decided April 20, 1949

Supreme Court of North Carolina · decided 1949-04-20

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“It has long been the rule in this State that a motion to set aside the verdict and for a new trial is `addressed to the sound discretion of the trial judge, whose ruling, in the absence of abuse of discretion, is not reviewable on appeal.'”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 187 N.C. App. 658 - Decker v. HOMES, INC./CONSTRUCTION MGMT.

Relies on Ziglar v. . Ziglar · Hardy v. . Dahl

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1949-04-20

How this case has been cited

Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently May 2019 · most notably State v. Britt (1974), 9 N.C. App. 587 - GLEN FOREST CORPORATION v. Bensch (1970)

30 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Per CuRiam.

¶1 The only question involved on this appeal is whether or not- the court below committed error in denying plaintiff’s motion to set aside the verdict and for a new trial.

¶2 The plaintiff’s contentions were submitted to the jury on a proper issue and in a charge which he concedes to be free from error.

¶3 There was no question of law or legal inference involved in the motion lodged below. Consequently it was addressed to the sound discretion of *323 tbe trial judge, whose ruling, in the absence of abuse of discretion, is not reviewable on appeal. No abuse of discretion is shown. G.S. 1-207; Ziglar v, Ziglar, 226 N.C. 102, 36 S.E. 2d 657; Anderson v. Holland, 209 N.C. 746, 184 S.E. 480.

¶4 The judgment below is

¶5 Affirmed.