proofs offered hearing in North Carolina

56 North Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1988–2026 20 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 (17)

Case	Followed	Cited
Boudreau v. Baughmangreen nc · 1988 · cited in 31 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 1992–2026 2 sentences 2026When reviewing the allegations and proffers 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. 331, 343 , 368 S.E.2d 849, 858 (1988) (citation omitted). 2026When reviewing the allegations and proffers 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. 331, 343 , 368 S.E.2d 849, 858 (1988) (citation omitted).	30	31
Collingwood v. GEN. ELEC. R. EST. EQUIT.green nc · 1989 · cited in 12 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2008–2018 2 sentences 2018"All 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." Id. at 66 , 376 S.E.2d at 427 (citing Page v. Sloan , 281 N.C. 697 , 190 S.E.2d 189 (1972) ). 2. 2018"All 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." Id. at 66 , 376 S.E.2d at 427 (citing Page v. Sloan , 281 N.C. 697 , 190 S.E.2d 189 (1972) ). 2.	9	12
Forbis v. Nealgreen nc · 2007 · cited in 7 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2020–2023 2 sentences 2023On 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). 2023On 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).	7	7
Page v. Sloangreen nc · 1972 · cited in 16 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 1988–2018 2 sentences 2018"All 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." Id. at 66 , 376 S.E.2d at 427 (citing Page v. Sloan , 281 N.C. 697 , 190 S.E.2d 189 (1972) ). 2. 2018"All 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." Id. at 66 , 376 S.E.2d at 427 (citing Page v. Sloan , 281 N.C. 697 , 190 S.E.2d 189 (1972) ). 2.	6	16
DeWitt v. Eveready Battery Co., Inc.green nc · 2002 · cited in 6 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2021–2022 2 sentences 2022When reviewing 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. 331, 343 , 368 S.E.2d 849, 858 (1988) (citation omitted). ¶ 30 “The party moving for summary judgment bears the burden of establishing that there is no triable issue of material fact.” DeWitt v. Eveready Battery Co., 355 N.C. 672, 681 , 565 S.E.2d 140, 146 (2002) (citation omitted). 2022When reviewing 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. 331, 343 , 368 S.E.2d 849, 858 (1988) (citation omitted). ¶ 30 “The party moving for summary judgment bears the burden of establishing that there is no triable issue of material fact.” DeWitt v. Eveready Battery Co., 355 N.C. 672, 681 , 565 S.E.2d 140, 146 (2002) (citation omitted).	4	6
Koontz v. City of Winston-Salemgreen · 1972 · cited in 4 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2022–2022 2 sentences 2022“An issue is material if the facts alleged would . . . affect the result of the action[.]” Koontz v. City of Winston-Salem, 280 N.C. 513, 518 , 186 S.E.2d 897, 901 (1972). ¶ 63 When the court reviews the proffers of evidence, verified complaint and affidavits 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. 331, 343 , 368 S.E.2d 849, 858 (1998) (citation omitted). 2022“An issue is material if the facts alleged would . . . affect the result of the action[.]” Koontz v. City of Winston-Salem, 280 N.C. 513, 518 , 186 S.E.2d 897, 901 (1972). ¶ 63 When the court reviews the proffers of evidence, verified complaint and affidavits 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. 331, 343 , 368 S.E.2d 849, 858 (1998) (citation omitted).	4	4
Draughon v. Harnett County Board of Educationgreen ncctapp · 2003 · cited in 2 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2022–2022 2 sentences 2022App. 208, 212 , 580 S.E.2d 732, 735 (2003), aff’d per curiam, 358 N.C. 131 , 591 S.E.2d 521 (2004) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). ¶ 13 When reviewing the allegations and proffers 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. 331, 343 , 368 S.E.2d 849, 858 (1988) (citation omitted). 2022App. 208, 212 , 580 S.E.2d 732, 735 (2003), aff’d per curiam, 358 N.C. 131 , 591 S.E.2d 521 (2004) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). ¶ 13 When reviewing the allegations and proffers 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. 331, 343 , 368 S.E.2d 849, 858 (1988) (citation omitted).	2	2
King v. Allredgreen nc · 1983 · cited in 2 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2021–2021 2 sentences 2021King v. Allred, 309 N.C. 113, 115 , 305 S.E.2d 554, 556 (1983). ¶ 34 “The party moving for summary judgment has the burden of establishing the lack of any triable issue,” and “[a]ll inferences of fact from the proofs offered at the hearing must be drawn . . . in favor of the party opposing the motion.” Monzingo v. Pitt County Memorial Hosp. 2021King v. Allred, 309 N.C. 113, 115 , 305 S.E.2d 554, 556 (1983). ¶ 34 “The party moving for summary judgment has the burden of establishing the lack of any triable issue,” and “[a]ll inferences of fact from the proofs offered at the hearing must be drawn . . . in favor of the party opposing the motion.” Monzingo v. Pitt County Memorial Hosp.	2	2
Mozingo v. Pitt County Memorial Hospital, Inc.green nc · 1992 · cited in 2 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2021–2021 2 sentences 2021Inc., 331 N.C. 182, 187 , 415 S.E.2d 341, 344 (1992) (citations omitted). 2021Inc., 331 N.C. 182, 187 , 415 S.E.2d 341, 344 (1992) (citations omitted).	2	2
Watts v. Cumberland County Hospital System, Inc.green nc · 1986 · cited in 2 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 1990–1995 2 sentences 1995Systems, 317 N.C. 321, 322-23 , 345 S.E.2d 201, 202 (1986). “ ‘[A]ll inferences of fact from the proofs offered at the hearing must be’ ” viewed in favor of the non-movant. 1995Systems, 317 N.C. 321, 322-23 , 345 S.E.2d 201, 202 (1986). “ ‘[A]ll inferences of fact from the proofs offered at the hearing must be’ ” viewed in favor of the non-movant.	2	2
Dickens v. Puryeargreen nc · 1981 · cited in 2 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 1990–1995 2 sentences 1990System, 317 N.C. 321, 322-23 , 345 S.E.2d 201, 202 (1986); [ see ] Caldwell v. Deese, 288 N.C. 375 , 218 S.E.2d 379 (1975). "[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." Dickens v. Puryear, 302 N.C. at 453 , 276 S.E.2d at 335 , quoting Page v. Sloan, 281 N.C. 697, 706 , 190 S.E.2d 189, 194 (1972). 1990System, 317 N.C. 321, 322-23 , 345 S.E.2d 201, 202 (1986); [ see ] Caldwell v. Deese, 288 N.C. 375 , 218 S.E.2d 379 (1975). "[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." Dickens v. Puryear, 302 N.C. at 453 , 276 S.E.2d at 335 , quoting Page v. Sloan, 281 N.C. 697, 706 , 190 S.E.2d 189, 194 (1972).	1	2
Owen v. Haywood Countygreen ncctapp · 2010 · cited in 1 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2026–2026 1 sentence 2026“All 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.” Owen v. Haywood Cnty., 205 N.C.	1	1
Green Ex Rel. Downs v. Duke Power Co.green nc · 1982 · cited in 1 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2014–2014 2 sentences 2014Nat’l Stores, Inc., 290 N.C. 118, 131 , 225 S.E.2d 797, 806 (1976), mod. on other grounds in Green v. Duke Power Co., 305 N.C. 603, 606-08 , 290 S.E.2d 593, 595-96 (1982)).2 “All 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. 331, 343 , 368 S.E.2d 849, 858 (1988) (citing Page, 281 N.C. at 706 , 190 S.E.2d at 194 ). 2014Nat’l Stores, Inc., 290 N.C. 118, 131 , 225 S.E.2d 797, 806 (1976), mod. on other grounds in Green v. Duke Power Co., 305 N.C. 603, 606-08 , 290 S.E.2d 593, 595-96 (1982)).2 “All 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. 331, 343 , 368 S.E.2d 849, 858 (1988) (citing Page, 281 N.C. at 706 , 190 S.E.2d at 194 ).	1	1
Oestreicher v. American National Stores, Inc.green nc · 1976 · cited in 1 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2014–2014 2 sentences 2014Nat’l Stores, Inc., 290 N.C. 118, 131 , 225 S.E.2d 797, 806 (1976), mod. on other grounds in Green v. Duke Power Co., 305 N.C. 603, 606-08 , 290 S.E.2d 593, 595-96 (1982)).2 “All 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. 331, 343 , 368 S.E.2d 849, 858 (1988) (citing Page, 281 N.C. at 706 , 190 S.E.2d at 194 ). 2014Nat’l Stores, Inc., 290 N.C. 118, 131 , 225 S.E.2d 797, 806 (1976), mod. on other grounds in Green v. Duke Power Co., 305 N.C. 603, 606-08 , 290 S.E.2d 593, 595-96 (1982)).2 “All 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. 331, 343 , 368 S.E.2d 849, 858 (1988) (citing Page, 281 N.C. at 706 , 190 S.E.2d at 194 ).	1	1
Lowe v. Bradfordgreen nc · 1982 · cited in 1 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2013–2013 2 sentences 2013“A party moving for summary judgment may prevail if it meets the burden (1) of proving an essential element of the opposing party’s claim is nonexistent, or (2) of showing through discovery that the opposing party cannot produce evidence to support an essential element of his or her claim.” Lowe v. Bradford, 305 N.C. 366, 369 , 289 S.E.2d 363, 366 (1982) (citations omitted). “[0]nce 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 2013“A party moving for summary judgment may prevail if it meets the burden (1) of proving an essential element of the opposing party’s claim is nonexistent, or (2) of showing through discovery that the opposing party cannot produce evidence to support an essential element of his or her claim.” Lowe v. Bradford, 305 N.C. 366, 369 , 289 S.E.2d 363, 366 (1982) (citations omitted). “[0]nce 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	1	1
Summey v. Barkergreen nc · 2003 · cited in 1 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2009–2009 1 sentence 2009See id. “[A] 11 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. 331, 343 , 368 S.E.2d 849, 858 (1988) (citing Page v. Sloan, 281 N.C. 697, 706 , 190 S.E.2d 189, 194 (1972)).	1	1
Southeastern Shelter Corp. v. BTU, INC.green ncctapp · 2002 · cited in 1 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2006–2006 2 sentences 2006In reviewing the evidence at summary judgment, "all 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." Southeastern Shelter Corp. v. BTU, Inc., 154 N.C.App. 321, 326 , 572 S.E.2d 200, 204 (2002). 2006In reviewing the evidence at summary judgment, "all 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." Southeastern Shelter Corp. v. BTU, Inc., 154 N.C.App. 321, 326 , 572 S.E.2d 200, 204 (2002).	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 (7)

Case	Cited	Years
Draughon v. HARNETT COUNTY BD. OF EDUCATION green nc · 2004 2 sentences 2022App. 208, 212 , 580 S.E.2d 732, 735 (2003), aff’d per curiam, 358 N.C. 131 , 591 S.E.2d 521 (2004) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). ¶ 13 When reviewing the allegations and proffers 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. 331, 343 , 368 S.E.2d 849, 858 (1988) (citation omitted). 2022App. 208, 212 , 580 S.E.2d 732, 735 (2003), aff’d per curiam, 358 N.C. 131 , 591 S.E.2d 521 (2004) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). ¶ 13 When reviewing the allegations and proffers 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. 331, 343 , 368 S.E.2d 849, 858 (1988) (citation omitted).	2	2022–2022
Edwards v. GE Lighting Systems, Inc. green ncctapp · 2008 1 sentence 2025Opinion of the Court from the proofs offered at the hearing must be drawn against the movant and in favor of the party opposing the motion.” Id. (citation omitted).	1	2025–2025
Chemimetals Processing, Inc. v. Schrimsher green ncctapp · 2000 1 sentence 2018Double Recovery It is well established that under North Carolina law, a plaintiff may not obtain a " 'double recovery' for the same loss or injury." Chemimetals Processing, Inc. v. Schrimsher , 140 N.C.	1	2018–2018
Phelps-Dickson Builders, LLC v. Amerimann Partners green ncctapp · 2005 1 sentence 2014As a result of the fact that “[s]ummary judgment is a ‘somewhat drastic remedy,’” Phelps-Dickson Builders, L.L.C. v. Amerimann Partners, 172 N.C.	1	2014–2014
Gaunt v. Pittaway green ncctapp · 2000 1 sentence 2013“A party moving for summary judgment may prevail if it meets the burden (1) of proving an essential element of the opposing party’s claim is nonexistent, or (2) of showing through discovery that the opposing party cannot produce evidence to support an essential element of his or her claim.” Lowe v. Bradford, 305 N.C. 366, 369 , 289 S.E.2d 363, 366 (1982) (citations omitted). “[0]nce 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	1	2013–2013
Pulley v. Rex Hospital green nc · 1990 1 sentence 1995Pulley at 704 , 392 S.E.2d at 382 , citing Dickens v. Puryear, 302 N.C. 437, 453 , 276 S.E.2d 325, 335 (1981).	1	1995–1995
Caldwell v. Deese green nc · 1975 2 sentences 1990System, 317 N.C. 321, 322-23 , 345 S.E.2d 201, 202 (1986); [ see ] Caldwell v. Deese, 288 N.C. 375 , 218 S.E.2d 379 (1975). "[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." Dickens v. Puryear, 302 N.C. at 453 , 276 S.E.2d at 335 , quoting Page v. Sloan, 281 N.C. 697, 706 , 190 S.E.2d 189, 194 (1972). 1990System, 317 N.C. 321, 322-23 , 345 S.E.2d 201, 202 (1986); [ see ] Caldwell v. Deese, 288 N.C. 375 , 218 S.E.2d 379 (1975). "[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." Dickens v. Puryear, 302 N.C. at 453 , 276 S.E.2d at 335 , quoting Page v. Sloan, 281 N.C. 697, 706 , 190 S.E.2d 189, 194 (1972).	1	1990–1990

Statutes the citing opinions construe

NC § N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1 (41) NC § N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7A-27 (16) NC § N.C. Gen. Stat. § 42-42 (4) NC § N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7A-34 (4) NC § N.C. Gen. Stat. § 22-2 (3) NC § N.C. Gen. Stat. § 6-21.2 (3) 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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check