Rice v. Rigsby

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Rice v. Rigsby

136 S.E.2d 35, 261 N.C. 687, 1964 N.C. LEXIS 558

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedApril 29, 1964

Docket315

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 136 S.E.2d 35 (Rice v. Rigsby) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Rice v. Rigsby, 136 S.E.2d 35, 261 N.C. 687, 1964 N.C. LEXIS 558 (N.C. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The testimony of both plaintiff and defendant that defendant was neither drunk nor under the influence of any intoxicant at the time his automobile overturned and injured plaintiff is set at naught by the allegation in plaintiff’s complaint that defendant was operating his motor vehicle while under the influence of an intoxicating beverage and that such operation was the proximate cause of his injuries. The opinion in Davis v. Rigsby, supra, is controlling here. The motion for nonsuit should have been allowed.

Reversed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

The testimony of both plaintiff and defendant that defendant was neither drunk nor under the influence of any intoxicant at the time his automobile overturned and injured plaintiff is set at naught by the allegation in plaintiff’s complaint that defendant was operating his motor vehicle while under the influence of an intoxicating beverage and that such operation was the proximate cause of his injuries. The opinion in Davis v. Rigsby, supra, is controlling here. The motion for nonsuit should have been allowed.

Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

136 S.E.2d 35, 261 N.C. 687, 1964 N.C. LEXIS 558, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rice-v-rigsby-nc-1964.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack