# Myrick v. Cooley

> Court of Appeals of North Carolina · September 6, 1988 · 91 N.C. App. 209

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9593702

## Case

- **Full name:** Alton Myrick v. James Oscar Cooley, Andrew F. Goodwin, Jr., Paul Douglas Barnhart, the City of Graham Police Department and City of Graham
- **Court:** Court of Appeals of North Carolina
- **Decided:** September 6, 1988
- **Citations:** 91 N.C. App. 209; 371 S.E.2d 492; 1988 N.C. App. LEXIS 804
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Johnson
- **Judges:** Becton, Greene, Johnson
- **Cited by:** 53 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9593702

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- explaining that "[a]lthough the officer has discretion, within reasonable limits, to judge the degree of force required under the circumstances, when 25 there is substantial evidence of unusual force," the question of whether the force was excessive is for the jury (internal q…
- explaining that "it is possible, in some instances, for an arrest to be constitution- ally valid and yet illegal under state law" and holding that evidence was sufficient to justify a finding of common law assault and battery even though it was insufficient to prove a constitu…
- recognizing that false not specifically mention those claims arrest is one way to commit false again. Nor does anyone else – at the imprisonment

## Opinion text

*218 Judge JOHNSON
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I concur in part and dissent in part. I concur in the majority opinion except as to that portion of the holding which states that the issue of common law assault and battery should have been submitted to the jury. To this part, I respectfully dissent. Under the given circumstances of the case and considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff I do not believe there is substantial evidence of unusual force shown in the arresting of plaintiff. Plaintiff even testified that he did not intend for the officer to arrest him. The evidence shows that the officer used such force as was necessary to properly discharge his duties and overcome plaintiffs resistance.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9593702. Public record. Not legal advice.