Legal Opinion

Hunnicutt v. Lundberg

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided June 6, 1989No. 8810SC1012PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ARNOLD, Judge.

Plaintiff contends that the trial court improperly entered summary judgment in favor of defendant. We disagree.

The summary judgment rule provides “an efficient method for determining whether a material issue of fact actually exists. ... In order to prevail, a movant must establish the absence of any material issue of fact.” Southerland v. Kapp, 59 N.C. App. 94, 95, 295 S.E. 2d 602 (1982) [citations omitted]. The movant can meet this burden by showing the non-existence of an essential element of the plaintiff’s claim. Id. These elements comprise a negligence cause of action:…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Sink Ex Rel. Pullen v. MooreSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1966
  2. Southerland v. KappCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1982
  3. Sanders v. DavisCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1975

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Giles v. SmithCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1993
  2. Dyson v. StonestreetCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1989
  3. Mims v. ParkerCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2020
  4. Mims v. ParkerCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2020
  5. Pierce v. N.C.D.O.C.North Carolina Industrial Commission · 1996

1 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