Legal Opinion

Carroll v. Rountree

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided October 5, 1977No. 763SC989PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MORRIS, Judge.

The purpose of the motion for summary judgment is to allow the court to determine, prior to trial, whether there exists any genuine issue with respect to a material fact. Singleton v. Stewart, 280 N.C. 460, 186 S.E. 2d 400 (1972); Britt v. Britt, 26 N.C. App. 132, 215 S.E. 2d 172 (1975), and if the court determines there is no genuine issue of material fact, an early effective disposition of the matter is possible under § 1A-1, Rule 56. Britt v. Britt, supra. It is not within the purview of the summary judgment procedure for the court to resolve disputed material issues of fact.…

2Cases cited26 opinions

  1. Newton v. Standard Fire InsuranceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1976
  2. Singleton v. StewartSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1972
  3. Bryan Builders Supply v. MidyetteSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1968
  4. Saberton v. GreenwaldOhio Supreme Court · 1946
  5. First Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Branch Banking & Trust Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1972

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Wagenmann v. AdamsCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1987
  2. Miranda v. SaidSupreme Court of Iowa · 2013
  3. Amoco Oil Co. v. GriffinCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1986
  4. Hill v. Pinelawn Memorial Park, Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1981
  5. Stanback v. StanbackCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1978

2 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