Freeman v. STURDIVANT DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
Court of Appeals of North Carolina
1Opinion of the Court
ARNOLD, Judge.
Appeal of Defendants
Defendants initially contend that the trial court erred in denying their motion for summary judgment. As movants under Rule 56 they had the burden of establishing the lack of a triable issue of fact. Houck v. Overcash, 282 N.C. 623, 193 S.E. 2d 905 (1973) ; Stewart v. Singleton, 280 N.C. 460, 186 S.E. 2d 400 (1972) ; Hinson v. Jefferson, 20 N.C. App. 204, 200 S.E. 2d 812 (1973). Papers of the opposing party are indulgently regarded and all inferences drawn in his favor. Page v. Sloan, 281 N.C. 697, 190 S.E. 2d 189 (1972). Viewing in this manner the materials…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Page v. SloanSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1972
- Kelly v. International Harvester CompanySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1971
- Singleton v. StewartSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1972
- Cutts v. CaseySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1971
- Summey v. CauthenSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1973
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- State Ex Rel. Utilities Commission v. Nantahala Power & Light Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1985
- Forstmann v. CulpDistrict Court, M.D. North Carolina · 1986
- Harris v. Procter & Gamble Manufacturing Co.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1991
- Paccar Financial Corp. v. Harnett Transfer, Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1981
- A-S-P Associates v. City of RaleighCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1978
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.