Bindinglaw

NC · jury_instructions

N.C.P.I.—Civil 815.26

VOIDABLE MARRIAGE (ANNULMENT)-ISSUE OF IMPOTENCE - DEFENSE OF KNOWLEDGE.

activein force · 1999-01-01 – presentas-observed

The (state number) issue reads:

"Did the plaintiff know or should the plaintiff have known2, prior to

the marriage, that (name spouse) was physically, permanently and

incurably impotent?"

You will answer this issue only if you have answered the (state

number) issue "Yes" in favor of the plaintiff.

On this issue the burden of proof is on the defendant. This means

that the defendant must prove, by the greater weight of the evidence,

that prior to the marriage, the plaintiff knew or should have known that

(name spouse) was physically, permanently and incurably impotent.

Finally, as to this (state number) issue on which the defendant has

the burden of proof, if you find by the greater weight of the evidence that

the plaintiff knew or should have known before the marriage that (name

spouse) was physically, permanently and incurably impotent, then it

would be your duty to answer this issue "Yes" in favor of the defendant.

If, on the other hand, you fail to so find, it would be your duty to

answer this issue "No" in favor of the plaintiff.

History

N.C.P.I.—Civil 815.26 (January 1999). Prepared by the North Carolina Conference of Superior Court Judges' Committee on Pattern Jury Instructions, assisted by the UNC School of Government; published by the School of Government.

Provenance

Source
sog.unc.edu
Retrieved
2026-09-24
Edition
2026-09-24
Content hash
90f1b4d18f5f6029a4d67af80458eec3e44c392fc32ba1058d855cfd9c2ee3b8
View the official source →

The link goes to the issuing authority’s own document — the one we read to produce this record. Where a source publishes whole titles rather than sections, your browser may need a moment to jump to the provision.

Unofficial copy of government-published law, reproduced from official sources with full provenance. Not an official publication; verify against official sources before relying on it in a filing. Records in the 'guidance' corpus, and only that corpus, are sub-regulatory (interpretive guidelines, survey procedures) and are not binding law. Validity bounds follow each jurisdiction's declared temporalBasis.

Coverage · API docs

Bindinglaw

Point-in-time US law with the receipt attached. Source URL, retrieval time, content hash, and validity dates on every answer.

curl api.binding.law/v1/law/coverage

© 2026 binding.law · a Jubal, Inc. productAttorneys and firms never pay. Ever.