Alexander v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | PER CURIAM. |
| Citation | Alexander v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 359 N.C. 403, 610 S.E.2d 374 (N.C. 2005) |
| Decision Date | 07 April 2005 |
| Docket Number | No. 588A04.,588A04. |
| Parties | John ALEXANDER, Employee v. WAL-MART STORES, INC., Employer, American Home Assurance Company, Carrier. |
Brumbaugh, Mu & King, P.A., Jacksonville, by Nicole D. Wray and Charles R. Hassell Jr., Raleigh, for plaintiff-appellant.
Young Moore and Henderson P.A., Raleigh, by Zachary C. Bolen and Dawn Dillon Raynor, for defendant-appellees.
Kathleen Shannon Glancy, Wilmington, Counsel for the North Carolina Academy of Trial Lawyers, amicus curiae.
For the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion, we reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals.
REVERSED.
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
27 cases
-
Watts v. Borg Warner Automotive, Inc.
...(2005); Alexander v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 166 N.C.App. 563, 603 S.E.2d 552 (2004) (J. Hudson dissenting), rev'd per curiam, 359 N.C. 403, 610 S.E.2d 374 (2005). "Unless a causal connection between employment and injury is proved, the injury is not compensable. The burden of proving the ca......
-
Day v. Brant
...this Court's role is not to engage in such a weighing of the evidence.”), rev'd per curiam for reasons in dissenting opinion, 359 N.C. 403, 610 S.E.2d 374 (2005). This aspect of the directed verdict standard is consistent with the Supreme Court's holding in Howerton that “once the trial cou......
-
Workman v. Rutherford Electric
...Hudson, dissenting) (quoting Deese v. Champion Int'l Corp., 352 N.C. 109, 116, 530 S.E.2d 549, 553 (2000)), rev'd per curiam, 359 N.C. 403, 610 S.E.2d 374 (2005). Our Supreme Court reversed and adopted the dissenting opinion in Alexander, holding the greater weight of the evidence standard ......
-
Cameron v. Merisel Properties, Inc.
...(Hudson, J., dissenting) (quoting Adams v. AVX Corp., 349 N.C. 676, 681, 509 S.E.2d 411, 414 (1998)), rev'd per dissent, 359 N.C. 403, 610 S.E.2d 374 (2005). Without making any new arguments Defendant also asserts that if this Court disagrees that the motion for JNOV should have been grante......
Get Started for Free
