Legal Opinion

Rowe v. Franklin County

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided February 18, 1986No. 859SC687Published

1Opinion of the Court

PARKER, Judge.

On a motion for summary judgment, the moving party bears the burden of proving: (i) there is no genuine issue of material fact and (ii) that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Smith v. Smith, 65 N.C. App. 139, 308 S.E. 2d 504 (1983). Appellant contends that a genuine issue of material fact remained to be decided; i.e., whether the Trustees had the authority to enter into a long-term contract with appellant on 15 June 1983. However, the answer to this question involves an issue of statutory interpretation, which is a question of law for the court to decide. See, e.g.,…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. State Ex Rel. Utilities Commission v. Public Staff-North Carolina Utilities CommissionSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1983
  2. Plant Food Co. v. City of CharlotteSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1938
  3. State Ex Rel. Edmisten v. TuckerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1984
  4. Moody v. Transylvania CountySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1967
  5. Smith v. SmithCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1983

6 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