Alpiser v. Eagle Pontiac-GMC-Isuzu, Inc.
Court of Appeals of North Carolina
1Opinion of the Court
JOHNSON, Judge.
Before reaching the questions raised by plaintiff, we note that defendant GMAC urges that this appeal should be dismissed because plaintiff has “fail[ed] to respond or otherwise set forth specific facts” showing a genuine issue as to whether any claim exists with respect to defendant GMAC as required by G.S. sec. 1A-1, Rule 56(e). We disagree. Plaintiffs verified complaint may serve as an “affidavit” for purposes of answering GMAC’s verified motion for summary judgment. Whitehurst v. Corey, 88 N.C. App. 746, 748, 364 S.E.2d 728, 729-30 (1988) (and cases cited therein). GMAC did…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Christian v. ChristianNew York Court of Appeals · 1977
- Hume v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1889
- Brenner v. Little Red School House, Ltd.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1981
- Sellers v. Frank Griffin AMC Jeep, Inc.District Court of Appeal of Florida · 1988
- Mejia v. Citizens & Southern BankCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1985
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- Rite Color Chemical Co., Inc. v. VELVET TEXTILE CO. INC.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1992
- Patel v. Telerent Leasing Corp.Mississippi Supreme Court · 1990
- Park City Services, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co.California Court of Appeal · 2006
- Mangold v. Nissan North America, Inc.Appellate Court of Illinois · 2004
- Ryan v. American Honda Motor Corp.New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 2005
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.