Legal Opinion

Patterson v. Pierce

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided June 7, 1994No. 9311SC923PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

WELLS, Judge.

Although our appellate courts have consistently held that summary judgment is rarely appropriate in negligence actions, see Lamb v. Wedgewood South Corp., 308 N.C. 419, 302 S.E.2d 868 (1983); nevertheless, summary judgment should be entered where the forecast of evidence before the trial court demonstrates that a plaintiff cannot support an essential element of his claim. Roumillat v. Simplistic Enterprises, Inc., 331 N.C. 57, 414 S.E.2d 339 (1992).

The materials before the trial court in this case consisted of the parties’ pleadings, the depositions of Ronald Patterson, Frankie…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Roumillat v. Simplistic Enterprises, Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1992
  2. Lamb v. Wedgewood South Corp.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1983
  3. Hairston v. Alexander Tank & Equipment Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1984
  4. Forgy v. SchwartzSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1964

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Grayson v. High Point Development Ltd. PartnershipCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2006
  2. Strickland v. DoeCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2003
  3. Harrison v. City of SanfordCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2006
  4. Bostic Packaging, Inc. v. City of MonroeCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2002
  5. Frank v. FunkhouserCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2005

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