Legal Opinion

Mizell v. K-Mart Corp.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided August 6, 1991No. 9018SC969PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

EAGLES, Judge.

Plaintiff contends that the trial court erred in granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff argues that a genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether the liquid remained on the floor for such a length of time that defendant knew or should have known of its existence. We agree.

Under G.S. 1A-1, Rule 56(c), defendant is entitled to summary judgment if the record shows “that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that [defendant] is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Defendant, as the party moving for summary judgment, has the burden…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Kessing v. National Mortgage CorporationSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1971
  2. Moore v. Fieldcrest Mills, Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1979
  3. Norwood v. Sherwin-Williams Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1981
  4. Lamm v. Bissette Realty, Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1990
  5. Hotel Corp. v. Taylor and Fletcher v. Foremans, Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1980

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Furr v. K-Mart Corp.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 2001
  2. Carter v. Food Lion, Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1997
  3. Thompson v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 2000
  4. State of North Carolina Gaston County Estate of Jiggetts Ex Rel. Jiggetts v. City of GastoniaCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1998
  5. Mizell v. K-Mart Corp.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1991

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

Powered by the Exa API