Petrou v. Hale
Court of Appeals of North Carolina
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
- Stanback v. StanbackSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1979
- Moore v. Fieldcrest Mills, Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1979
- Zimmerman v. Hogg & Allen, Professional Ass'nSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1974
- Hodges v. CarterSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1954
- Brody v. RubySupreme Court of Iowa · 1978
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by26 opinions
- Buschi v. KirvenCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1985
- Oren Royal Oaks Venture v. Greenberg, Bernard, Weiss & Karma Inc.California Supreme Court · 1986
- United Leasing Corp. v. MillerCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1980
- Buschi v. KirvenCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1985
- Chidnese v. ChidneseCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2011
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.