Martin v. City of Asheville
Court of Appeals of North Carolina
1Opinion of the Court
WELLS, Judge.
The question presented is whether the trial court’s order of summary judgment in favor of defendant was proper. It is elementary that summary judgment is appropriate only where the pleadings and discovery materials leave unresolved no genuine issue of material fact. Our Supreme Court has held:
A defendant is entitled to summary judgment only if he can produce a forecast of evidence which, when viewed most favorably to plaintiff, would, “if offered by plaintiff at the trial, without more, . . . compel a directed verdict” in defendant’s favor. Moore v. Fieldcrest Mills, Inc., 296…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Dickens v. PuryearSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1981
- Moore v. Fieldcrest Mills, Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1979
- Mims v. MimsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1982
- Mazzacco v. PurcellSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1981
- Briles v. BrilesCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1979
3Cited by4 opinions
- McCurry v. WilsonCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1988
- McIntosh v. Carefree Carolina Communities, Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1990
- Newton v. New Hanover County Board of EducationCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1994
- Newton v. New Hanover County Board of EducationCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1994