Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

25 N.C. App. 231

Shook v. Herring Construction Co.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided March 19, 1975

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · decided 1975-03-19

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently May 1978

2 state decisions

Relies on Hollman v. City of Raleigh, Public Utilities Department · Wallace v. Watkins-Carolina Express, Inc.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1975-03-19

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

BROCK, Chief Judge.

¶1The crux of plaintiff’s argument on appeal is that plaintiff’s testimony was the only evidence of how his injury occurred ; that plaintiff’s testimony supports an award of compensation; and that the Commission erred in denying compensation.

¶2 We note that defendant offered considerable evidence which tended to show that plaintiff’s testimony was incredible. In any event the Commission is not required to accept as true even the uncontroverted testimony of a witness. Wallace v. Watkins-Carolina Express, Inc., 11 N.C. App. 556, 181 S.E. 2d 767 (1971). Upon appeal this Court does not have the right to *232weigh' the evidence and decide the issue on the weight given the evidence by this Court. Hollman v. City of Raleigh, 273 N.C. 240, 159 S.E. 2d 874 (1968).

¶3Affirmed.

Judges Vaughn and Martin concur.
/25/ncapp/231 · .json · Public domain