Bruno v. Concept Fabrics, Inc.
Court of Appeals of North Carolina
1Opinion of the Court
HORTON, Judge.
Plaintiff contends that there are disputed factual issues in this case which prevent the entry of summary judgment. As to defendant Gleissner, plaintiff alleges a claim pursuant to the decision of our Supreme Court in Pleasant v. Johnson, 312 N.C. 710, 325 S.E.2d 244 (1985). Further, plaintiff alleges that defendant Concept Fabrics, Inc. is liable for damages pursuant to the holding of the Supreme Court in Woodson v. Rowland, 329 N.C. 330, 407 S.E.2d 222 (1991). We will discuss separately the propriety of summary judgment as to each defendant.
I. Defendant R.A. Gleissner
Concept…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Woodson v. RowlandSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1991
- Pleasant v. JohnsonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1985
- Pendergrass v. Card Care, Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1993
- Sorrells v. M.Y.B. Hospitality VenturesSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1992
- Pastva v. Naegele Outdoor Advertising, Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1996
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Trivette v. YountSupreme Court of North Carolina · 2012
- Blue v. Mountaire Farms, Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 2016
- Dorton v. HENDRICK MOTORSPORTS, INC.District Court, M.D. North Carolina · 2011
- Baker v. IvesterCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2002