Legal Opinion

Baumann v. Smith

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided May 15, 1979No. 787SC701PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

CARLTON, Judge.

The sole question presented by this appeal is whether the trial court properly allowed defendants’ motion for summary judgment.

G.S. 1A-1, Rule 56(c) provides in pertinent part as follows:

The [summary] judgment sought shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and *226admissions 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.

By the clear language of the rule itself, the motion for summary judgment can be granted only…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Singleton v. StewartSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1972
  2. Vetco Concrete Company v. TROY LUMBER COMPANYSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1962
  3. Eleanora B. Cobb Rogers v. Peabody Coal CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1965
  4. Nasco Equipment Co. v. MasonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1976
  5. Pridgen v. HughesCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1970

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Renfro v. MeachamCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1981
  2. Rink & Robinson, PLLC v. Catawba Valley Enterprises, LLCCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2012
  3. Dealers Specialties, Inc. v. Neighborhood Housing Services, Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1981

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

Powered by the Exa API