Legal Opinion

Walton v. Carignan

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided July 2, 1991No. 901SC992PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

WELLS, Judge.

Because principles of summary judgment law are often stated and well understood, we need not repeat them here. The essential and dispositive question is whether the materials before the trial court presented a factual dispute appropriate for resolution by trial, or whether under the undisputed facts of this case, plaintiffs were entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Covenants which restrict an owner’s use of real property have often presented our courts with questions difficult to resolve, but few cases we have found in the law of this State have presented a question more…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. J. T. Hobby & Son, Inc. v. Family Homes of Wake County, Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1981
  2. Long v. BranhamSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1967
  3. BLACK HORSE RUN PROP. OWNERS ASSOCIATION-RALEIGH, INC. v. KaleelCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1987
  4. Beverly Island Ass'n v. ZingerMichigan Court of Appeals · 1982
  5. Barber v. DixonCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1983

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Residentes Parkville Sur v. Díaz LucianoSupreme Court of Puerto Rico · 2003
  2. Metzner v. WojdylaWashington Supreme Court · 1994
  3. Russell v. DonaldsonCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2012
  4. Hill v. LindnerNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 2009
  5. Williams v. PaleyCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1994

6 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