Legal Opinion

Sauls v. Charlotte Liberty Mutual Insurance

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided June 7, 1983No. 828DC601PublishedCited by 15 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 N.C.…

2Cases cited9 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. Vassey v. BurchSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1980
  4. Gas House, Inc. v. Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1976
  5. Tolbert v. Mutual Benefit Life InsuranceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1952

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

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. Leonardo v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co.District Court of Appeal of Florida · 1996
  2. Busby v. SimmonsCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1991
  3. Summey Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. County of HendersonCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1989
  4. Northern National Life Insurance v. Lacy J. Miller MacHine Co.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1983
  5. Barrow v. MurphreyCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1989

10 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