Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
410 North Carolina opinions name it 4 courts 1977–2026 57 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Dobson v. Harrisgreen2 sentences2026The movant may make the required showing by proving that “an essential element of the opposing party’s claim does not exist, cannot be proven at trial, or would be barred by an affirmative defense . . . or by showing through discovery that the opposing party cannot produce evidence to support an essential element of her claim[.]” Dobson, 352 N.C. at 83 (citations omitted). 62. 2026The movant may make the required showing by proving that “an essential element of the opposing party’s claim does not exist, cannot be proven at trial, or would be barred by an affirmative defense . . . or by showing through discovery that the opposing party cannot produce evidence to support an essential element of her claim[.]” Dobson, 352 N.C. at 83 (citations omitted). 51. | 35 | 43 |
Collingwood v. GEN. ELEC. R. EST. EQUIT.green2 sentences2011“The movant may meet this burden by proving that an essential element of the opposing party’s claim is nonexistent, or by showing through discovery that the opposing party cannot produce evidence to support an essential element of his claim or cannot surmount an affirmative defense which would bar the claim.” Collingwood v. General Electric Real Estate Equities, Inc., 324 N.C. 63, 66 , 376 S.E.2d 425, 427 (1989). 2011“The movant may meet this burden by proving that an essential element of the opposing party’s claim is nonexistent, or by showing through discovery that the opposing party cannot produce evidence to support an essential element of his claim or cannot surmount an affirmative defense which would bar the claim.” Collingwood v. General Electric Real Estate Equities, Inc., 324 N.C. 63, 66 , 376 S.E.2d 425, 427 (1989). | 32 | 49 |
Roumillat v. Simplistic Enterprises, Inc.yellow2 sentences2019The moving party bears the burden of establishing a lack of any triable issue and may meet this burden by “proving that an essential element of the opposing party’s claim is nonexistent, or by showing through discovery that the opposing party cannot produce evidence to support an essential element of his claim or cannot surmount an affirmative defense which would bar the claim.” Roumillat v. Simplistic Enters., Inc., 331 N.C. 57 , 62-63, 414 S.E.2d 339 , 341-42 (1992). 38. 2019The moving party bears the burden of establishing a lack of any triable issue and may meet this burden by “proving that an essential element of the opposing party’s claim is nonexistent, or by showing through discovery that the opposing party cannot produce evidence to support an essential element of his claim or cannot surmount an affirmative defense which would bar the claim.” Roumillat v. Simplistic Enters., Inc., 331 N.C. 57 , 62-63, 414 S.E.2d 339 , 341-42 (1992). 38. | 22 | 43 |
Boudreau v. Baughmangreen2 sentences2021A party may meet this burden “by proving that an essential element of the opposing party’s claim is nonexistent, or by showing through discovery that the opposing party cannot produce evidence to support an essential element of his claim or cannot surmount an affirmative defense which would bar the claim.” Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). ¶ 33 When the court reviews the evidence at summary judgment, “[a]ll inferences of fact from the proofs offered at the hearing must be drawn against the movant and in favor of the party opposing the motion.” Boudreau v. Baughman, 322 N.C. 2021A party may meet this burden “by proving that an essential element of the opposing party’s claim is nonexistent, or by showing through discovery that the opposing party cannot produce evidence to support an essential element of his claim or cannot surmount an affirmative defense which would bar the claim.” Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). ¶ 33 When the court reviews the evidence at summary judgment, “[a]ll inferences of fact from the proofs offered at the hearing must be drawn against the movant and in favor of the party opposing the motion.” Boudreau v. Baughman, 322 N.C. | 10 | 10 |
DeWitt v. Eveready Battery Co., Inc.green2 sentences2026“This burden may be met by proving . . . an essential element of the opposing party’s claim is nonextant, or by showing through discovery . . . opposing party cannot produce evidence to support an essential element of his claim or cannot surmount an affirmative defense[,] which would bar the claim.” Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). 2026“This burden may be met by proving . . . an essential element of the opposing party’s claim is non-extant, or by showing through discovery . . . the opposing party cannot produce evidence to support an essential element of his claim or cannot surmount an affirmative defense[,] which would bar the claim.” Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). -5- A defendant may show entitlement to summary judgment by: “(1) proving that an essential element of the plaintiff’s case is nonexistent; (2) showing through discovery . . . plaintiff cannot produce evidence to support an essential element | 9 | 38 |
Dickens v. Puryeargreen2 sentences1994“Thus a defending party is entitled to summary judgment if he can show that claimant cannot prove the existence of an essential element of his claim, ... or cannot surmount an affirmative defense which would bar the claim.” Dickens v. Puryear, 302 N.C. 437, 453 , 276 S.E.2d 325, 335 (1981) (citations omitted). 1994“Thus a defending party is entitled to summary judgment if he can show that claimant cannot prove the existence of an essential element of his claim, ... or cannot surmount an affirmative defense which would bar the claim.” Dickens v. Puryear, 302 N.C. 437, 453 , 276 S.E.2d 325, 335 (1981) (citations omitted). | 9 | 26 |
Forbis v. Nealgreen2 sentences2022“This burden may be met by proving that an essential element of the opposing party’s claim is nonexistent, or by showing through discovery that the opposing party cannot produce evidence to support an essential element of his claim or cannot surmount an affirmative defense which would bar the claim.” Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). ¶ 31 On appeal, “[t]he standard of review for summary judgment is de novo.” Forbis v. Neal, 361 N.C. 519, 524 , 649 S.E.2d 382, 385 (2007) (citation omitted). 2022“This burden may be met by proving that an essential element of the opposing party’s claim is nonexistent, or by showing through discovery that the opposing party cannot produce evidence to support an essential element of his claim or cannot surmount an affirmative defense which would bar the claim.” Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). ¶ 31 On appeal, “[t]he standard of review for summary judgment is de novo.” Forbis v. Neal, 361 N.C. 519, 524 , 649 S.E.2d 382, 385 (2007) (citation omitted). | 8 | 8 |
Gaunt v. Pittawaygreen2 sentences2026“Once the party seeking summary judgment makes the required showing, the burden shifts to the nonmoving party to produce a forecast of evidence demonstrating specific facts, as opposed to allegations, showing that he can at least establish a prima facie case at trial.” Gaunt v. Pittaway, 139 N.C. 2018The moving party bears the burden of establishing a lack of any triable issue and may meet this burden by “proving that an essential element of the opposing party’s claim is nonexistent, or by showing through discovery that the opposing party cannot produce evidence to support an essential element of his claim or cannot surmount an affirmative defense which would bar the claim.” Roumillat v. Simplistic Enters., Inc., 331 N.C. 57 , 62–63, 414 S.E.2d 339 , 341–42 (1992). 39. “[O]nce the party seeking summary judgment makes the required showing, the burden shifts to the nonmoving party to produce | 7 | 27 |
Zimmerman v. Hogg & Allen, Professional Ass'ngreen2 sentences2006The movant can carry this burden “by proving that an essential element of the opposing party’s claim is nonexistent or by showing through discovery that the opposing party cannot produce evidence to support an essential element of his claim.” Zimmerman v. Hogg & Allen, 286 N.C. 24, 29 , 209 S.E.2d 795, 798 (1974). 2006The movant can carry this burden “by proving that an essential element of the opposing party’s claim is nonexistent or by showing through discovery that the opposing party cannot produce evidence to support an essential element of his claim.” Zimmerman v. Hogg & Allen, 286 N.C. 24, 29 , 209 S.E.2d 795, 798 (1974). | 7 | 27 |
Wilhelm v. City of Fayettevillegreen2 sentences2019The moving party must demonstrate the absence of a triable issue: "(1) by showing that an essential element of the opposing party's claim is nonexistent; or (2) [by] demonstrating that the opposing party cannot produce evidence sufficient to support an essential element of the claim or overcome an affirmative defense which would work to bar [its] claim." Wilhelm v. City of Fayetteville , 121 N.C. App. 87 , 89, 464 S.E.2d 299 , 300 (1995) (citing Roumillat v. Simplistic Enters., Inc. , 331 N.C. 57 , 63, 414 S.E.2d 339 , 342 (1992) ). 2019The moving party must demonstrate the absence of a triable issue: "(1) by showing that an essential element of the opposing party's claim is nonexistent; or (2) [by] demonstrating that the opposing party cannot produce evidence sufficient to support an essential element of the claim or overcome an affirmative defense which would work to bar [its] claim." Wilhelm v. City of Fayetteville , 121 N.C. App. 87 , 89, 464 S.E.2d 299 , 300 (1995) (citing Roumillat v. Simplistic Enters., Inc. , 331 N.C. 57 , 63, 414 S.E.2d 339 , 342 (1992) ). | 7 | 10 |
Lyles v. City of Charlottegreen2 sentences2006"A defendant who moves for summary judgment may meet this burden by showing either that (1) an essential element of plaintiff's 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. 2005"A defendant who moves for summary judgment may meet this burden by showing either that (1) an essential element of plaintiff's 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.App. 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.App. at 733 | 6 | 16 |
Bernick v. Jurdengreen2 sentences2005The movant may meet this burden by proving that an essential element of the opposing party’s claim is nonexistent, or by showing through discovery that the opposing party cannot produce evidence to support an essential element of his claim or cannot surmount an affirmative defense which would bar the claim. *210 Roumillat, 331 N.C. at 63 , 414 S.E.2d at 342 (citing Bernick v. Jurden, 306 N.C. 435 , 293 S.E.2d 405 (1982); Zimmerman v. Hogg & Allen, 286 N.C. 24 , 209 S.E.2d 795 (1974)). 2005The movant may meet this burden by proving that an essential element of the opposing party’s claim is nonexistent, or by showing through discovery that the opposing party cannot produce evidence to support an essential element of his claim or cannot surmount an affirmative defense which would bar the claim. *210 Roumillat, 331 N.C. at 63 , 414 S.E.2d at 342 (citing Bernick v. Jurden, 306 N.C. 435 , 293 S.E.2d 405 (1982); Zimmerman v. Hogg & Allen, 286 N.C. 24 , 209 S.E.2d 795 (1974)). | 5 | 16 |
McKinnon v. CV INDUSTRIES, INC.green2 sentences2016"A movant [for summary judgment] may meet its burden by showing either that: (1) an essential element of the non-movant's case is nonexistent; or (2) based upon discovery, the non-movant cannot produce evidence to support an essential element of its claim." McKinnon v. CV Indus., Inc., 213 N.C.App. 328 , 332, 713 S.E.2d 495 , 499 (2011) (quoting Moore v. City of Creedmoor , 120 N.C.App. 27 , 36, 460 S.E.2d 899 , 904 (1995) ). 2016"A movant [for summary judgment] may meet its burden by showing either that: (1) an essential element of the non-movant's case is nonexistent; or (2) based upon discovery, the non-movant cannot produce evidence to support an essential element of its claim." McKinnon v. CV Indus., Inc., 213 N.C.App. 328 , 332, 713 S.E.2d 495 , 499 (2011) (quoting Moore v. City of Creedmoor , 120 N.C.App. 27 , 36, 460 S.E.2d 899 , 904 (1995) ). | 5 | 6 |
Lowe v. Bradfordgreen2 sentences2000The showing required for summary judgment may be accomplished by proving an essential element of the opposing party’s claim does not exist, cannot be proven at trial, or would be barred by an affirmative defense, e.g., Goodman v. Wenco Foods, Inc., 333 N.C. 1 , 423 S.E.2d 444 (1992), or by showing through discovery that the opposing party cannot produce evidence to support an essential element of her claim, e.g., Lowe v. Bradford, 305 N.C. 366 , 289 S.E.2d 363 (1982). 2000The showing required for summary judgment may be accomplished by proving an essential element of the opposing party’s claim does not exist, cannot be proven at trial, or would be barred by an affirmative defense, e.g., Goodman v. Wenco Foods, Inc., 333 N.C. 1 , 423 S.E.2d 444 (1992), or by showing through discovery that the opposing party cannot produce evidence to support an essential element of her claim, e.g., Lowe v. Bradford, 305 N.C. 366 , 289 S.E.2d 363 (1982). | 4 | 7 |
Moore v. Fieldcrest Mills, Inc.green2 sentences1992A party may do so by “ ‘proving that an essential element of the opposing party’s claim is nonexistent or by showing through discovery that the opposing party cannot produce evidence to support an essential element of his claim.’ ” Moore v. Fieldcrest Mills, Inc., 296 N.C. 467, 470 , 251 S.E.2d 419, 421 (1979). 1992A party may do so by “ ‘proving that an essential element of the opposing party’s claim is nonexistent or by showing through discovery that the opposing party cannot produce evidence to support an essential element of his claim.’ ” Moore v. Fieldcrest Mills, Inc., 296 N.C. 467, 470 , 251 S.E.2d 419, 421 (1979). | 4 | 7 |
City of Thomasville v. Lease-Afex, Inc.green2 sentences2019A party moving for summary judgment may meet his or her burden by “showing through discovery that the opposing party cannot produce evidence to support an essential element of his or her claim.” Thomasville v. Lease-Afex, Inc., 300 N.C. 651, 654 , 268 S.E.2d 190, 193 (1980); see also Rorrer, 313 N.C. at 350 , 329 S.E.2d at 363 (explaining that a movant at summary judgment has “the initial burden of showing that an essential element of [the claimant’s] case [does] not exist as a matter of law or showing through discovery that [the claimant has] not produced evidence to support an essential elem 2019A party moving for summary judgment may meet his or her burden by “showing through discovery that the opposing party cannot produce evidence to support an essential element of his or her claim.” Thomasville v. Lease-Afex, Inc., 300 N.C. 651, 654 , 268 S.E.2d 190, 193 (1980); see also Rorrer, 313 N.C. at 350 , 329 S.E.2d at 363 (explaining that a movant at summary judgment has “the initial burden of showing that an essential element of [the claimant’s] case [does] not exist as a matter of law or showing through discovery that [the claimant has] not produced evidence to support an essential elem | 4 | 5 |
Taylor v. Ashburngreen2 sentences2011The moving party can satisfy this burden “by showing either (1) an essential element of the non-movant’s claim is nonexistent, (2) the non-movant cannot produce evidence to support an essential element of his claim, or (3) the non-movant cannot surmount an affirmative defense which would bar his claim.” Id. at 606-07 , 436 S.E.2d at 278 . 2011The moving party can satisfy this burden “by showing either (1) an essential element of the non-movant’s claim is nonexistent, (2) the non-movant cannot produce evidence to support an essential element of his claim, or (3) the non-movant cannot surmount an affirmative defense which would bar his claim.” Id. at 606-07 , 436 S.E.2d at 278 . | 4 | 5 |
Pembee Mfg. Corp. v. Cape Fear Const. Co., Inc.green2 sentences2005Co., 313 N.C. 488, 491 , 329 S.E.2d 350, 353 (1985). “ ‘The movant may meet this burden by proving that an essential element of the opposing party’s claim is nonexistent, or by showing through discovery that the opposing party cannot produce evidence to support an essential element of his claim or cannot surmount an affirmative defense which would bar the claim.’ ” Roumillat v. Simplistic Enterprises, Inc., 331 N.C. 57, 63 , 414 S.E.2d 339, 342 (1992) (quoting Collingwood v. G.E. 2005Co., 313 N.C. 488, 491 , 329 S.E.2d 350, 353 (1985). “ ‘The movant may meet this burden by proving that an essential element of the opposing party’s claim is nonexistent, or by showing through discovery that the opposing party cannot produce evidence to support an essential element of his claim or cannot surmount an affirmative defense which would bar the claim.’ ” Roumillat v. Simplistic Enterprises, Inc., 331 N.C. 57, 63 , 414 S.E.2d 339, 342 (1992) (quoting Collingwood v. G.E. | 4 | 4 |
Harrison v. City of Sanfordgreen2 sentences2025“There is no genuine issue of material fact where a party demonstrates that the claimant cannot prove the existence of an essential element of his claim or cannot -7- surmount an affirmative defense which would bar the claim.” Harrison v. City of Sanford, 177 N.C. App. 116, 118 , 627 S.E.2d 672, 675 (2006) (citation omitted). 2025“There is no genuine issue of material fact where a party demonstrates that the claimant cannot prove the existence of an essential element of his claim or cannot -7- surmount an affirmative defense which would bar the claim.” Harrison v. City of Sanford, 177 N.C. App. 116, 118 , 627 S.E.2d 672, 675 (2006) (citation omitted). | 3 | 9 |
CIM Ins. Corp. v. Cascade Auto Glass, Inc.green2 sentences2026Corp. v. Cascade Auto Glass, Inc., 190 N.C. App. 808, 811 (2008) (citation omitted). 2024“This burden can be met by proving: (1) that an essential element of the non-moving party’s claim is nonexistent; (2) that discovery indicates the non-moving party cannot produce evidence to support an essential element of his claim; or (3) that an affirmative defense would bar the [non- moving party’s] claim.” Id. (citation omitted). | 3 | 5 |
| Holloway v. Wachovia Bank & Trust Co., NAgreen | 3 | 3 |
| Griffith v. Glen Wood Co., Inc.green | 3 | 3 |
| Badin Shores Resort Owners Ass'n, Inc. v. Handy Sanitary Dist.green | 3 | 3 |
| In Re the Will of Jonesgreen | 3 | 3 |
| Rorrer v. Cookegreen | 3 | 3 |
| Waddle v. Sparksgreen | 3 | 3 |
| Ward v. Durham Life Insurance Co.green | 3 | 3 |
Pacheco v. Rogers and Breece, Inc.green2 sentences2008“When a plaintiff fails to produce any evidence of an essential element of her claim, the trial court’s grant of summary judgment is proper.” Pacheco v. Rogers & Breece, Inc., 157 N.C. 2008App. at 452 , 579 S.E.2d at 509 ("When a plaintiff fails to produce any evidence of an essential element of her claim, the trial court's grant of summary judgment is proper."). | 2 | 8 |
Clark v. Browngreen2 sentences1996In order to prevail on a summary judgment motion, the moving party must show either “(1) an essential element of plaintiff’s 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.” Clark v. Brown, 99 N.C. 1996In order to prevail on a summary judgment motion, the moving party must show either “(1) an essential element of plaintiff’s 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.” Clark v. Brown, 99 N.C. | 2 | 5 |
Moore v. City of Creedmoorgreen2 sentences2016"A movant [for summary judgment] may meet its burden by showing either that: (1) an essential element of the non-movant's case is nonexistent; or (2) based upon discovery, the non-movant cannot produce evidence to support an essential element of its claim." McKinnon v. CV Indus., Inc., 213 N.C.App. 328 , 332, 713 S.E.2d 495 , 499 (2011) (quoting Moore v. City of Creedmoor , 120 N.C.App. 27 , 36, 460 S.E.2d 899 , 904 (1995) ). 2016"A movant [for summary judgment] may meet its burden by showing either that: (1) an essential element of the non-movant's case is nonexistent; or (2) based upon discovery, the non-movant cannot produce evidence to support an essential element of its claim." McKinnon v. CV Indus., Inc., 213 N.C.App. 328 , 332, 713 S.E.2d 495 , 499 (2011) (quoting Moore v. City of Creedmoor , 120 N.C.App. 27 , 36, 460 S.E.2d 899 , 904 (1995) ). | 2 | 4 |
| Hamby v. Thurman Timber Co.green | 2 | 3 |
| Goodman v. Wenco Foods, Inc.green | 2 | 3 |
| Dixie Chemical Corp. v. Edwardsgreen | 2 | 3 |
| Caswell Realty Associates I, L.P. v. Andrews Co.green | 2 | 3 |
| Green v. Freemangreen | 2 | 2 |
| Davis Ex Rel. Gholston v. Cumberland County Board of Educationgreen | 2 | 2 |
| Hardin v. KCS International, Inc.green | 2 | 2 |
| Cloud v. Stewartgreen | 2 | 2 |
| Dendy v. Watkinsgreen | 2 | 2 |
| United Laboratories, Inc. v. Kuykendallgreen | 2 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in North Carolina. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Wallen v. Riverside Sports Center
green
2 sentences2021Summary judgment is proper only when the “pleadings, together with depositions, interrogatories, admissions on file, and supporting affidavits show that no genuine issue of material fact exists between the parties with respect to the controversy being litigated and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Id. (citation omitted). ¶ 21 The movant bears the burden of establishing “there is no triable issue of material fact [by] proving that an essential element of the opposing party’s claim is non-existent, or by showing through discovery that the opposing party cannot produc 2021Summary judgment is proper only when the “pleadings, together with depositions, interrogatories, admissions on file, and supporting affidavits show that no genuine issue of material fact exists between the parties with respect to the controversy being litigated and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Id. (citation omitted). ¶ 21 The movant bears the burden of establishing “there is no triable issue of material fact [by] proving that an essential element of the opposing party’s claim is non-existent, or by showing through discovery that the opposing party cannot produc | 6 | 2018–2022 |
State v. Whitted
green
2 sentences2012When moving for summary judgment, the movant has the burden to show “(1) an essential element of the non-movant’s claim is nonexistent, (2) the non-movant cannot produce evidence to support an essential element of his claim, or (3) the non-movant cannot surmount an affirmative defense which would bar his claim.” Taylor v. Ashburn, 112 N.C. 2012When moving for summary judgment, the movant has the burden to show “(1) an essential element of the non-movant’s claim is nonexistent, (2) the non-movant cannot produce evidence to support an essential element of his claim, or (3) the non-movant cannot surmount an affirmative defense which would bar his claim.” Taylor v. Ashburn, 112 N.C. | 6 | 1995–2012 |
Andresen v. Progress Energy, Inc.
green
2 sentences2016Furthermore, this Court has noted to prevail in a summary judgment action, "[t]he movant ... bears the burden of showing that (1) an essential element of plaintiff's 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." Andresen v. Progress Energy, Inc., 204 N.C.App. 182 , 184, 696 S.E.2d 159 , 161 (2010) (internal quotations omitted). 2016Furthermore, this Court has noted to prevail in a summary judgment action, "[t]he movant ... bears the burden of showing that (1) an essential element of plaintiff's 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." Andresen v. Progress Energy, Inc., 204 N.C.App. 182 , 184, 696 S.E.2d 159 , 161 (2010) (internal quotations omitted). | 5 | 2014–2016 |
Lyles v. City of Charlotte
green
2 sentences2005"A defendant who moves for summary judgment may meet this burden by showing either that (1) an essential element of plaintiff's 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.App. 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.App. at 733 2005"A defendant who moves for summary judgment may meet this burden by showing either that (1) an essential element of plaintiff's 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.App. 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.App. at 733 | 5 | 1999–2006 |
East Mkt. St. Square, Inc. v. Tycorp Pizza IV, Inc.
neutral
2 sentences2007App. 116, 118 , 627 S.E.2d 672, 675 , disc. review denied, 361 N.C. 166 , 639 S.E.2d 649 (2006). 2007"There is no genuine issue of material fact where a party demonstrates that the claimant cannot prove the existence of an essential element of his claim or cannot surmount an affirmative defense which would bar the claim." Harrison v. City of Sanford, 177 N.C.App. 116 , 118, 627 S.E.2d 672 , 675, disc. review denied, 361 N.C. 166 , 639 S.E.2d 649 (2006). | 4 | 2007–2007 |
Messick v. Catawba County, NC
red
2 sentences2006The movant can meet the burden by either: "1) Proving that an essential element of the opposing party's claim is nonexistent; or 2) Showing through discovery that the opposing party cannot produce evidence sufficient to support an essential element of his claim nor [evidence] sufficient to surmount an affirmative defense to his claim." Price v. Davis, 132 N.C.App. 556, 559 , 512 S.E.2d 783, 786 (1999) (citing Messick v. Catawba County, 110 N.C.App. 707, 712 , 431 S.E.2d 489, 492-93 , disc. rev. denied, 334 N.C. 621 , 435 S.E.2d 336 (1993)). 2006The movant can meet the burden by either: "1) Proving that an essential element of the opposing party's claim is nonexistent; or 2) Showing through discovery that the opposing party cannot produce evidence sufficient to support an essential element of his claim nor [evidence] sufficient to surmount an affirmative defense to his claim." Price v. Davis, 132 N.C.App. 556, 559 , 512 S.E.2d 783, 786 (1999) (citing Messick v. Catawba County, 110 N.C.App. 707, 712 , 431 S.E.2d 489, 492-93 , disc. rev. denied, 334 N.C. 621 , 435 S.E.2d 336 (1993)). | 4 | 1998–2006 |
| Shuping v. Barber green | 4 | 1990–1996 |
| Little v. National Service Industries, Inc. green | 4 | 1989–1994 |
| Cummings v. Carroll green | 3 | 2022–2023 |
| Draughon v. Harnett County Board of Education green | 3 | 2009–2020 |
| Bostic Packaging, Inc. v. City of Monroe green | 3 | 2005–2018 |
| Farrelly v. Hamilton Square green | 3 | 2004–2016 |
| Strickland v. Lawrence green | 3 | 2013–2014 |
| Messick v. CATAWBA COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA green | 3 | 1999–2006 |
| Hinson v. Hinson green | 3 | 1993–1994 |
| Wallen v. Sports Center neutral | 2 | 2022–2022 |
| Wallen v. Riverside Sports Ctr. neutral | 2 | 2022–2022 |
| Stephens v. Covington green | 2 | 2020–2020 |
| Gaunt v. Pittaway neutral | 2 | 2020–2020 |
| Gaunt v. Pittaway neutral | 2 | 2020–2020 |
| Camalier v. Jeffries green | 2 | 1998–2017 |
| Gaunt v. Pittaway neutral | 2 | 2016–2016 |
| Smith v. Whitmer green | 2 | 2010–2012 |
| Foster v. Winston-Salem Joint Venture green | 2 | 2012–2012 |
| Elliott v. Duke University, Inc. green | 2 | 2000–2011 |
| East Market Street Square, Inc. v. Tycorp Pizza IV, Inc. neutral | 2 | 2007–2007 |
| Beaver v. Hancock green | 2 | 1995–2007 |
| Taylor v. Ashburn green | 2 | 2004–2007 |
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.
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.