Inglese v. Beal
Court of Appeals of South Carolina
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partPieper, J.
I agree that summary judgment is proper as to Inglese’s equitable indemnification claim. However, I respectfully dis*304sent as to the granting of summary judgment on Inglese’s unjust enrichment claim and would reverse as to that claim.3
In determining whether the trial court erred in granting summary judgment, an appellate court views the evidence and all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. See Englert, Inc. v. LeafGuard USA, Inc., 377 S.C. 129, 134, 659 S.E.2d 496, 498 (2008). Here, as to the equitable indemnification claim, no disputed facts exist as to…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- GEM Developers v. Hallcraft Homes of San Diego, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1989
- Vermeer Carolina's, Inc. v. Wood/Chuck Chipper Corp.Court of Appeals of South Carolina · 1999
- First Union Nat. Bank of SC v. SodenCourt of Appeals of South Carolina · 1998
- Arnold v. City of SpartanburgSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1943
- Biales v. YoungSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1993
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.