essential element claim (North Carolina) · Go Syfert
← North Carolina issues

essential element claim in North Carolina

401 North Carolina opinions name it 4 courts 1977–2026 52 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 (52)

CaseFollowedCited
Dobson v. Harrisgreen
nc · 2000 · cited in 42 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2001–2026
2 sentences

2026The 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, 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 , 530 S.E.2d at 835 .

2026The 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, 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 , 530 S.E.2d at 835 .

3442
Collingwood v. GEN. ELEC. R. EST. EQUIT.green
nc · 1989 · cited in 48 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 1991–2022
2 sentences

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).

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).

3148
Roumillat v. Simplistic Enterprises, Inc.red
nc · 1992 · cited in 42 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 1992–2019
2 sentences

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.

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.

2242
Dickens v. Puryeargreen
nc · 1981 · cited in 26 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 1981–2009
2 sentences

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).

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).

926
Boudreau v. Baughmangreen
nc · 1988 · cited in 8 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 1995–2021
2 sentences

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.

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.

88
DeWitt v. Eveready Battery Co., Inc.green
nc · 2002 · cited in 35 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2003–2026
2 sentences

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- DALES V.

2026“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).

735
Zimmerman v. Hogg & Allen, Professional Ass'ngreen
nc · 1974 · cited in 27 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 1977–2026
2 sentences

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).

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).

727
Wilhelm v. City of Fayettevillegreen
ncctapp · 1995 · cited in 10 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2000–2019
2 sentences

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.

2014App. 182, 184 , 696 S.E.2d 159 , 160–61 (2010). {19} The moving party must demonstrate the absence of a triable issue and does so either: “(1) by showing that an essential element of the opposing party’s claim is non-existent; 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.

710
Lyles v. City of Charlottegreen
ncctapp · 1995 · cited in 16 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 1998–2006
2 sentences

2006"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

616
Forbis v. Nealgreen
nc · 2007 · cited in 6 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2021–2022
2 sentences

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).

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).

66
Bernick v. Jurdengreen
nc · 1982 · cited in 16 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 1985–2009
2 sentences

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)).

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)).

516
McKinnon v. CV INDUSTRIES, INC.green
ncctapp · 2011 · cited in 6 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2015–2016
2 sentences

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) ).

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) ).

56
Lowe v. Bradfordgreen
nc · 1982 · cited in 7 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 1982–2026
2 sentences

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).

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).

47
Moore v. Fieldcrest Mills, Inc.green
nc · 1979 · cited in 7 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 1980–1992
2 sentences

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).

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).

47
City of Thomasville v. Lease-Afex, Inc.green
nc · 1980 · cited in 5 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 1988–2019
2 sentences

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

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

45
Taylor v. Ashburngreen
ncctapp · 1993 · cited in 5 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2001–2012
2 sentences

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 .

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 .

45
Pembee Mfg. Corp. v. Cape Fear Const. Co., Inc.green
nc · 1985 · cited in 4 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 1995–2005
2 sentences

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.

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.

44
Holloway v. Wachovia Bank & Trust Co., NAgreen
nc · 1994 · cited in 3 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2014–2025
33
Rorrer v. Cookegreen
nc · 1985 · cited in 3 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 1986–2019
33
Waddle v. Sparksgreen
nc · 1992 · cited in 3 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 1995–2006
33
Ward v. Durham Life Insurance Co.green
nc · 1989 · cited in 3 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 1994–2005
33
Pacheco v. Rogers and Breece, Inc.green
ncctapp · 2003 · cited in 8 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2007–2018
2 sentences

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.").

2008“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.

28
Harrison v. City of Sanfordgreen
ncctapp · 2006 · cited in 8 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2007–2009
2 sentences

2009"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 ..." Harrison v. City of Sanford, 177 N.C.App. 116, 118 , 627 S.E.2d 672, 675 (2006) (citation omitted).

2009"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 ..." Harrison v. City of Sanford, 177 N.C.App. 116, 118 , 627 S.E.2d 672, 675 (2006) (citation omitted).

28
Clark v. Browngreen
ncctapp · 1990 · cited in 5 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 1990–1996
2 sentences

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.

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.

25
Moore v. City of Creedmoorgreen
ncctapp · 1995 · cited in 4 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2009–2016
2 sentences

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) ).

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) ).

24
Griffith v. Glen Wood Co., Inc.green
ncctapp · 2007 · cited in 3 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2016–2025
23
Badin Shores Resort Owners Ass'n, Inc. v. Handy Sanitary Dist.green
ncctapp · 2018 · cited in 3 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2020–2023
23
Hamby v. Thurman Timber Co.green
ncctapp · 2018 · cited in 3 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2019–2020
23
Goodman v. Wenco Foods, Inc.green
nc · 1992 · cited in 3 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2000–2019
23
Dixie Chemical Corp. v. Edwardsgreen
ncctapp · 1984 · cited in 3 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2001–2016
23
Caswell Realty Associates I, L.P. v. Andrews Co.green
ncctapp · 1998 · cited in 3 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2005–2009
23
Green v. Freemangreen
nc · 2013 · cited in 2 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2017–2022
22
Hardin v. KCS International, Inc.green
ncctapp · 2009 · cited in 2 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2021–2021
22
Cloud v. Stewartgreen
gactapp · 1955 · cited in 2 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2020–2020
22
Dendy v. Watkinsgreen
nc · 1975 · cited in 2 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2012–2012
22
United Laboratories, Inc. v. Kuykendallgreen
nc · 1988 · cited in 2 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2007–2008
22
Price v. Davisgreen
ncctapp · 1999 · cited in 2 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2005–2006
22
Weatherford v. Glassmangreen
ncctapp · 1998 · cited in 2 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2003–2006
22
Medlin v. Bassgreen
nc · 1990 · cited in 2 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 1995–2006
22
Bolick v. Bon Worth, Inc.green
ncctapp · 2002 · cited in 2 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2005–2006
22

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

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

Also cited on this issue (28)

CaseCitedYears
State v. Whitted green
ncctapp · 1993
2 sentences

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.

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.

71995–2012
Andresen v. Progress Energy, Inc. green
ncctapp · 2010
2 sentences

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).

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).

52014–2016
Lyles v. City of Charlotte green
nc · 1996
2 sentences

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

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

51999–2006
Wallen v. Riverside Sports Center green
ncctapp · 2005
2 sentences

2018A trial court should only grant such a motion where the plaintiff's forecast of evidence fails to support an essential element of the claim." Wallen v. Riverside Sports Ctr. , 173 N.C.

2018A trial court should only grant such a motion where the plaintiff's forecast of evidence fails to support an essential element of the claim." Wallen v. Riverside Sports Ctr. , 173 N.C.

42018–2022
East Mkt. St. Square, Inc. v. Tycorp Pizza IV, Inc. neutral
nc · 2006
2 sentences

2007App. 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).

42007–2007
Messick v. Catawba County, NC green
ncctapp · 1993
2 sentences

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)).

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)).

41998–2006
Shuping v. Barber green
ncctapp · 1988
41990–1996
Little v. National Service Industries, Inc. green
ncctapp · 1986
41989–1994
Draughon v. Harnett County Board of Education green
ncctapp · 2003
32009–2020
Bostic Packaging, Inc. v. City of Monroe green
ncctapp · 2002
32005–2018
Farrelly v. Hamilton Square green
ncctapp · 1995
32004–2016
Strickland v. Lawrence green
ncctapp · 2006
32013–2014
East Market Street Square, Inc. v. Tycorp Pizza IV, Inc. neutral
nc · 2006
32007–2007
Messick v. CATAWBA COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA green
nc · 1993
31999–2006
Hinson v. Hinson green
ncctapp · 1986
31993–1994
Davis Ex Rel. Gholston v. Cumberland County Board of Education green
ncctapp · 2011
22021–2021
Camalier v. Jeffries green
nc · 1995
21998–2017
Gaunt v. Pittaway neutral
nc · 2001
22016–2016
Gaunt v. Pittaway neutral
nc · 2001
22016–2016
Smith v. Whitmer green
ncctapp · 2003
22010–2012
Foster v. Winston-Salem Joint Venture green
nc · 1981
22012–2012
Elliott v. Duke University, Inc. green
ncctapp · 1984
22000–2011
Beaver v. Hancock green
ncctapp · 1985
21995–2007
Taylor v. Ashburn green
nc · 1994
22004–2007
Hines v. Yates green
ncctapp · 2005
22006–2006
Vares v. Vares green
ncctapp · 2002
22006–2006
Bruce-Terminix Company v. Zurich Ins. Co. green
· 1998
22005–2005
Kessing v. National Mortgage Corporation green
nc · 1971
21980–2005

Statutes the citing opinions construe

NC § N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1 (243) NC § N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1 (43) NC § N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7A-27 (33) NC § N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-52 (21) NC § N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-16 (13)

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 401 (1977–2026) TN 391 (1966–2026) CA 177 (1922–2026) TX 168 (1920–2026) IN 124 (1897–2024) MA 97 (1984–2026) MS 93 (1963–2026) OH 90 (1872–2026) ND 75 (1984–2025) WA 68 (1931–2026) NY 68 (1952–2025) GA 60 (1924–2025) IL 54 (1883–2026) AR 51 (1953–2025) LA 50 (1967–2022) WY 47 (1975–2026) MO 41 (1909–2024) MI 41 (1976–2026) AZ 40 (1966–2025) FL 38 (1951–2022) AL 32 (1978–2018) CT 28 (1972–2022) WI 28 (1951–2025) ID 26 (1965–2026) ME 23 (1982–2025) MN 22 (1924–2014) IA 22 (1915–2024) PA 20 (1900–2022) NM 17 (1967–2026) SC 17 (1924–2026) DE 17 (1941–2026) UT 16 (1994–2026) NJ 15 (1984–2023) MT 11 (2000–2026) KY 9 (1929–2024) OK 9 (1937–2009) SD 9 (1946–2016) RI 9 (1984–2026) NV 9 (1986–2022) MD 8 (1966–2024) NE 8 (1942–2023) KS 8 (1994–2026) HI 8 (1984–2018) OR 8 (1922–2010) WV 7 (1982–2025) CO 7 (1981–2025) VT 6 (2010–2025) DC 6 (1964–2021) VA 5 (1989–2023) NH 4 (1996–1999) VI 3 (2013–2023) AK 3 (1989–1998)

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