Legal Opinion

Wilson Brothers v. Mobil Oil

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided July 19, 1983No. 825SC789PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ARNOLD, Judge.

Summary judgment under G.S. 1A-1, Rule 56(c) is proper when there is “no genuine issue as to any material fact. . . .” It is a “drastic remedy . . . [that] must be used with due regard to its purposes and a cautious observance of its requirements in order that no person shall be deprived of a trial on a genuine disputed factual issue.” Kessing v. Mortgage Corp., 278 N.C. 523, 534, 180 S.E. 2d 823, 830 (1971). This remedy “does not authorize the court to decide an issue of fact. It authorizes the court to determine whether a genuine issue of fact exists.” Vassey v. Burch, 301…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Kessing v. National Mortgage CorporationSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1971
  2. Koontz v. City of Winston-SalemSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1972
  3. Hayes v. . Elon CollegeSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1944
  4. Williams v. Carolina Power & Light Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1979
  5. Smith v. Fiber Controls Corp.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1980

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. Crews v. W. A. Brown & Son, Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1992
  2. Holley v. Burroughs Wellcome Co.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1985
  3. Abner Corp. v. City Roofing and Sheetmetal Co.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1985
  4. Morgan v. Cavalier Acquisition Corp.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1993
  5. Matthews v. FOOD LION, LLCCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2010

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API