Legal Opinion

Gore v. Hill

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided June 16, 1981No. 8013SC1073PublishedCited by 14 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

HEDRICK, Judge.

The sole question presented by this appeal is whether the trial court improperly denied plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment and allowed defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff’s only argument is that the facts as to liability were undisputed: the foreclosure sale had been postponed in a manner contrary to the provisions of G.S. § 45-21.21 and that the sale was, therefore, void.

Upon a motion for summary judgment, the duty of the trial court is not to resolve issues of fact but to determine whether there is a genuine issue of material fact which should be…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Lambert v. Duke Power Co.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1977
  2. Lambert v. Duke Power CompanySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1977
  3. Buckman v. . BragawSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1926
  4. Albemarle Realty & Mortgage Co. v. Peoples Bank of Virginia BeachCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1977

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. Canady v. MannCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1992
  2. Little v. National Service Industries, Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1986
  3. Martin v. Ray Lackey Enterprises, Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1990
  4. Ipock v. GilmoreCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1985
  5. Alpiser v. Eagle Pontiac-GMC-Isuzu, Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1990

9 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