Legal Opinion

Petrou v. Hale

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided November 20, 1979No. 789SC1151PublishedCited by 26 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ERWIN, Judge.

Plaintiff contends the trial court erred in entering summary judgment on its claims of malicious prosecution, abuse of process, and negligence. We disagree.

“[T]he party moving for summary judgment has the burden of ‘clearly establishing the lack of any triable issue of fact by the record properly before the court ....’” Moore v. Fieldcrest Mills, Inc., 296 N.C. 467, 469-70, 251 S.E. 2d 419, 421 (1979). One means of meeting this burden is to show that an essential element of the opposing party’s claim is nonexistent. Moore v. Fieldcrest Mills, Inc., supra; Zimmerman v. Hogg &…

2Cases cited26 opinions

  1. Stanback v. StanbackSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1979
  2. Moore v. Fieldcrest Mills, Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1979
  3. Zimmerman v. Hogg & Allen, Professional Ass'nSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1974
  4. Hodges v. CarterSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1954
  5. Brody v. RubySupreme Court of Iowa · 1978

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

3Cited by26 opinions

  1. Buschi v. KirvenCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1985
  2. Oren Royal Oaks Venture v. Greenberg, Bernard, Weiss & Karma Inc.California Supreme Court · 1986
  3. United Leasing Corp. v. MillerCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1980
  4. Buschi v. KirvenCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1985
  5. Chidnese v. ChidneseCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2011

21 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