Legal Opinion

Strickland v. Dri-Spray Division Equipment Development

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided March 3, 1981No. 8011SC466PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MORRIS, Chief Judge.

Plaintiff asserts that it was error for the court to allow either motion for summary judgment. He contends that there were triable issues of fact as to whether defendants knew of prior injuries resulting from the use of this model sprayer, and whether defendants warned plaintiff of any danger in using the sprayer.

*60Due to the similarity of the contentions of the parties and the applicable law, we will consider the court’s action with regard to each of defendants’ motions together.

Rendition of summary judgment is conditioned upon a showing by the movant that there is no…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Page v. SloanSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1972
  2. McNair v. BoyetteSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1972
  3. Pridgen v. HughesCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1970
  4. Lee v. ShorCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1970
  5. Floyd E. Washington v. Dale C. Cameron, Superintendent, St. Elizabeth's HospitalCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1969

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

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Ziglar v. E. I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1981
  2. Southern Trust Insurance v. BranerCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1984

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API