essential element of plaintiffs claim in North Carolina

19 North Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1982–2005 0 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by North Carolina courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (8)

Case	Followed	Cited
Lyles v. City of Charlottegreen ncctapp · 1995 · cited in 5 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 1998–2005 2 sentences 2005“A defendant who moves for summary judgment may meet this burden by showing either that (1) an essential element of plaintiffs claim is nonexistent; (2) plaintiff cannot produce evidence to support an essential element of its claim; or (3) plaintiff cannot surmount an affirmative defense raised in bar of its claim.” Lyles v. City of Charlotte, 120 N.C. 2003“A defendant who moves for summary judgment may meet this burden by showing either that (1) an essential element of plaintiffs claim is nonexistent; (2) plaintiff cannot produce evidence to support an essential element of its claim; or (3) plaintiff cannot surmount an affirmative defense raised in bar of its claim.” Lyles v. City of Charlotte, 120 N.C.	3	5
Goodman v. Wenco Foods, Inc.green nc · 1992 · cited in 2 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2003–2004 2 sentences 2004Summary judgment is proper where “the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the 286 affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that any party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” N.C.G.S. § 1A-1, Rule 56(c) (2003). “[T]he movant must meet the burden of proving an essential element of plaintiffs claim does not exist, cannot be proven at trial or would be barred by an affirmative defense.” Goodman v. Wenco Foods, Inc., 333 N.C. 1, 21 , 423 S.E.2d 444, 454 (1992). 2004Summary judgment is proper where “the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the 286 affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that any party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” N.C.G.S. § 1A-1, Rule 56(c) (2003). “[T]he movant must meet the burden of proving an essential element of plaintiffs claim does not exist, cannot be proven at trial or would be barred by an affirmative defense.” Goodman v. Wenco Foods, Inc., 333 N.C. 1, 21 , 423 S.E.2d 444, 454 (1992).	2	2
Bernick v. Jurdengreen nc · 1982 · cited in 2 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 1985–1988 2 sentences 1988Bernick v. Jurden, 306 N.C. 435, 440-441 , 293 S.E. 2d 405, 409 (1982). 1988Bernick v. Jurden, 306 N.C. 435, 440-441 , 293 S.E. 2d 405, 409 (1982).	1	2
Caldwell v. Deesegreen nc · 1975 · cited in 1 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2004–2004 2 sentences 2004“In a motion for summary judgment, the evidence presented to the trial court must be admissible at trial, N.C.G.S. § 1A-1, Rule 56(e) (2003), and must be viewed in a light most favorable to the non-moving party.” Howerton v. Arai Helmet, Ltd., 358 N.C. 440, 467 , 597 S.E.2d 674, 692 (2004) (citing Caldwell v. Deese, 288 N.C. 375, 378 , 218 S.E.2d 379, 381 (1975)). 2004“In a motion for summary judgment, the evidence presented to the trial court must be admissible at trial, N.C.G.S. § 1A-1, Rule 56(e) (2003), and must be viewed in a light most favorable to the non-moving party.” Howerton v. Arai Helmet, Ltd., 358 N.C. 440, 467 , 597 S.E.2d 674, 692 (2004) (citing Caldwell v. Deese, 288 N.C. 375, 378 , 218 S.E.2d 379, 381 (1975)).	1	1
In the Matter of Yocumred nc · 2003 · cited in 1 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2004–2004 1 sentence 2004“In a motion for summary judgment, the evidence presented to the trial court must be admissible at trial, N.C.G.S. § 1A-1, Rule 56(e) (2003), and must be viewed in a light most favorable to the non-moving party.” Howerton v. Arai Helmet, Ltd., 358 N.C. 440, 467 , 597 S.E.2d 674, 692 (2004) (citing Caldwell v. Deese, 288 N.C. 375, 378 , 218 S.E.2d 379, 381 (1975)).	1	1
Mitchell v. Goldengreen ncctapp · 1992 · cited in 1 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2000–2000 2 sentences 2000“Defendants are thereby entitled to summary judgment if they establish either the nonexistence of an essential element of plaintiffs claim or show that plaintiff could not produce evidence of an essential element of her claim.” Mitchell v. Golden, 107 N.C. 2000App. 413, 417 , 420 S.E.2d 482, 484 (1992) (citing Roumillat v. Simplistic Enterprises, Inc., 331 N.C. 57 , 414 S.E.2d 339 (1992)).	1	1
Briscoe v. Henderson Lighting & Power Co.green nc · 1908 · cited in 1 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 1997–1997 2 sentences 1997The rule of the attractive nuisance doctrine was explained earlier by our Supreme Court in Briscoe v. Lighting & Power Co., 148 N.C. 396, 411 , 62 S.E. 600, 606 (1908): It must be conceded that the liability for injuries to children sustained by reason of dangerous conditions on one’s premises is recognized and enforced in cases in which no such liability accrues to adults. 1997The rule of the attractive nuisance doctrine was explained earlier by our Supreme Court in Briscoe v. Lighting & Power Co., 148 N.C. 396, 411 , 62 S.E. 600, 606 (1908): It must be conceded that the liability for injuries to children sustained by reason of dangerous conditions on one’s premises is recognized and enforced in cases in which no such liability accrues to adults.	1	1
Kavanau Real Estate Trust v. Debnamgreen nc · 1980 · cited in 1 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 1982–1982 2 sentences 1982See, e.g., Real Estate Trust v. Debnam, 299 N.C. 510, 513 , 263 S.E. 2d 595, 598 (1980). 1982See, e.g., Real Estate Trust v. Debnam, 299 N.C. 510, 513 , 263 S.E. 2d 595, 598 (1980).	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in North Carolina. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (12)

Case	Cited	Years
Lyles v. City of Charlotte green nc · 1996 2 sentences 2005App. 96, 99 , 461 S.E.2d 347, 350 (1995), rev’d on other grounds, 344 N.C. 676 , 477 S.E.2d 150 (1996). “[T]he evidence presented by the parties must be viewed in the light most favorable to the non-movant.” Bruce-Terminix, 130 N.C. 2005App. 96, 99 , 461 S.E.2d 347, 350 (1995), rev’d on other grounds, 344 N.C. 676 , 477 S.E.2d 150 (1996). “[T]he evidence presented by the parties must be viewed in the light most favorable to the non-movant.” Bruce-Terminix, 130 N.C.	3	1999–2005
Roumillat v. Simplistic Enterprises, Inc. red nc · 1992 2 sentences 2000App. 413, 417 , 420 S.E.2d 482, 484 (1992) (citing Roumillat v. Simplistic Enterprises, Inc., 331 N.C. 57 , 414 S.E.2d 339 (1992)). 2000App. 413, 417 , 420 S.E.2d 482, 484 (1992) (citing Roumillat v. Simplistic Enterprises, Inc., 331 N.C. 57 , 414 S.E.2d 339 (1992)).	2	1994–2000
Bruce-Terminix Company v. Zurich Ins. Co. green · 1998 1 sentence 2005App. 96, 99 , 461 S.E.2d 347, 350 (1995), rev’d on other grounds, 344 N.C. 676 , 477 S.E.2d 150 (1996). “[T]he evidence presented by the parties must be viewed in the light most favorable to the non-movant.” Bruce-Terminix, 130 N.C.	1	2005–2005
Howerton v. Arai Helmet, Ltd. red nc · 2004 1 sentence 2004“In a motion for summary judgment, the evidence presented to the trial court must be admissible at trial, N.C.G.S. § 1A-1, Rule 56(e) (2003), and must be viewed in a light most favorable to the non-moving party.” Howerton v. Arai Helmet, Ltd., 358 N.C. 440, 467 , 597 S.E.2d 674, 692 (2004) (citing Caldwell v. Deese, 288 N.C. 375, 378 , 218 S.E.2d 379, 381 (1975)).	1	2004–2004
Formyduval v. Bunn green nc · 2000 1 sentence 2003A defendant moving for summary judgment bears the burden of showing: “(1) that an essential element of plaintiffs claim is nonexistent; (2) that discovery indicates plaintiff cannot produce evidence to support an essential element; or (3) that plaintiff cannot surmount an affirmative defense.” Id.	1	2003–2003
Liller v. Quick Stop Food Mart, Inc. green ncctapp · 1998 1 sentence 1999Liller v. Quick Stop Food Mart, Inc. 131 N.C.	1	1999–1999
Broadway v. Blythe Industries, Inc. green nc · 1985 2 sentences 1997In this case, all three defendants, as the moving parties, “must prove that an essential element of plaintiffs claim is nonexistent or show that a forecast of plaintiff’s evidence indicates an inability to prove facts giving rise at trial to all essential elements of his claim.” Id. at 153 , 326 S.E.2d at 269 . 1997In this case, all three defendants, as the moving parties, “must prove that an essential element of plaintiffs claim is nonexistent or show that a forecast of plaintiff’s evidence indicates an inability to prove facts giving rise at trial to all essential elements of his claim.” Id. at 153 , 326 S.E.2d at 269 .	1	1997–1997
Green v. Wellons, Inc. green ncctapp · 1981 1 sentence 1996Green v. Wellons, Inc., 52 N.C.	1	1996–1996
Shuping v. Barber green ncctapp · 1988 1 sentence 1990As movant, defendant has the burden of showing at least one of the three grounds justifying summary judgment in his favor: (1) “an essential element of plaintiffs claim is nonexistent ... [2] plaintiff cannot produce evidence to support an essential element of his claim, or . . . [3] plaintiff cannot surmount an affirmative defense which would bar the claim.” Id. (citations omitted).	1	1990–1990
Southerland v. Kapp green ncctapp · 1982 2 sentences 1987Movant’s burden may be met by proving the non-existence of an essential element of plaintiffs claim for relief, Southerland v. Kapp, 59 N.C. 1987App. 94 , 295 S.E. 2d 602 (1982), or by establishing a complete defense to plaintiffs claim, Estrada v. Jaques, 70 N.C.	1	1987–1987
Estrada v. Jaques green ncctapp · 1984 1 sentence 1987App. 94 , 295 S.E. 2d 602 (1982), or by establishing a complete defense to plaintiffs claim, Estrada v. Jaques, 70 N.C.	1	1987–1987
Brown v. Fulford green nc · 1984 2 sentences 1985E. g., Brown v. Fulford, 311 N.C. 205 , 316 S.E. 2d 220 . 1985E. g., Brown v. Fulford, 311 N.C. 205 , 316 S.E. 2d 220 .	1	1985–1985

Statutes the citing opinions construe

NC § N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1 (10) NC § N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1 (3)

Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.

Where else courts name it

NC 19 (1982–2005) NM 2 (1997–2010) TX 2 (1995–2008) LA 2 (2011–2012) TN 2 (2002–2012)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check

Your account

Appearance