Powell v. S & G PRESTRESS CO.
Court of Appeals of North Carolina
1Opinion of the Court
*321WELLS, Judge.
Plaintiff contends that the trial court erred by granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment because there exist genuine issues of material fact regarding the liability of defendants for their alleged intentional misconduct based on Woodson v. Rowland, 329 N.C. 330, 407 S.E.2d 222 (1991). We disagree.
Summary judgment is proper where “the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that any party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.”…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Woodson v. RowlandSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1991
- Hooper v. Pizzagalli Construction Co.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1993
- Dunleavy v. Yates Construction Co.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1994
- Zocco v. United States, Department of the ArmyDistrict Court, E.D. North Carolina · 1992
3Cited by14 opinions
- Mickles v. Duke Power Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1995
- Brown v. Friday Services, Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1995
- Jones v. Willamette Industries, Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1995
- Echols v. Zarn, Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1994
- Rose v. Isenhour Brick & Tile Co., Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1996
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.