N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1

Rule 56 permits a second summary judgment motion only when it raises legal issues different from those raised in the earlier motion.

Hastings for Pratt v. Seegars Fence Co. · filed 1997-12-16Rule 56

A second motion for summary judgment may be considered by the trial court only when it presents legal issues different from those raised in the earlier motion.

Rule 56(c) requires ten days notice of a summary judgment hearing unless the opposing party waives notice; without notice or waiver, the court lacks authority to grant summary judgment.

Calhoun v. Wayne Dennis Heating & Air Conditioning · filed 1998-06-16Rule 56(c)

Because the defendants did not have ten days notice of the hearing on the motion, see N.C.G.S. § 1A-1, Rule 56(c) (1990), and because there is no evidence that the defendants waived their right to the notice, see Patrick v. Williams, 102 N.C. App. 355, 367, 402 S.E.2d 452, 459 (1991) (notice can be waived), the trial court was without authority to grant summary judgment.

Rule 56 requires a summary judgment motion and notice of its hearing to be served at least ten days before the hearing.

Barnett v. King · filed 1999-07-20Rule 56

Motions for summary judgment are governed by Rule 56 of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 56 states, “The motion shall be served at least 10 days before the time fixed for the hearing.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 56 (1990). Although Rule 56 makes no direct reference to notice of hearing, this Court has held that such notice also must be given at least ten (10) days prior to the hearing.

Rule 56(c) requires ten days’ notice before a summary judgment hearing.

Groves v. Community Housing Corp. of Haywood County · filed 2001-06-05(c)

As such, the plaintiff was not entitled to the ten days’ notice as required pursuant to Rule 56(c) on a motion for summary judgment.

Rule 56(c) requires a summary judgment motion to be served at least 10 days before the hearing, but a party waives that procedural notice by attending and participating without objection.

Anderson v. Anderson · filed 2001-08-07(c)

Rule 56 of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure states that a motion for summary judgment “shall be served at least 10 days before the time fixed for the hearing.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 56(c) (1999). ... Therefore, wife, by attending the hearing and participating without objection, waived the procedural notice otherwise required by Rule 56. Consequently, we find no error with the trial court’s hearing the summary judgment motion.

A second summary judgment motion is appropriate when it presents legal issues different from those raised in an earlier motion.

Connor v. Harless · filed 2006-03-07Rule 56

Initially, we note this appeal is properly before us. “Where a second motion [for summary judgment] presents legal issues . . . different from those raised in the prior motion, such [a] motion [is] appropriate.” ... Questioning whether a price term was physically present in the agreement and whether that written price was the amount actually negotiated and agreed upon by the parties to the agreement, are different legal inquiries and as such, present different legal issues. Thus, we address the merits of the case.

A party challenging inadequate notice of a summary judgment hearing under Rule 56(c) must show prejudice from receiving less than ten days' notice.

Northland Cable Television, Inc. v. Highlands Cable Group, Lp · filed 2009-06-16Rule 56(c)

In order for Defendants to prevail on this argument, they must show that Plaintiff's failure to provide the full ten days' notice prejudiced them. ... We hold the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Plaintiff does not fail due to Plaintiff's violation of the notice requirement of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 56(c).

Rule 56(c)’s ten-day notice requirement for a summary judgment hearing is waived when a party attends and participates without objection.

Crocker v. Roethling · filed 2011-11-15Rule 56(c)

This Court has held that “by attending the hearing and participating without objection” a plaintiff waives the ten day procedural notice otherwise required for a summary judgment hearing by N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 56(c). ... It is uncontroverted that Plaintiff participated in the summary judgment hearing, and that Plaintiffs’ counsel neither objected nor moved for a continuance. As such, Plaintiffs have waived this argument.

Rule 56(c)’s notice requirement for a summary judgment motion can be waived by participating in the hearing without objecting to inadequate notice or requesting more time.

Trillium Ridge Condominium Ass'n v. Trillium Links & Village, LLC · filed 2014-09-16Rule 56(c)

As a result of Plaintiff’s failure to object to the lack of notice or to request additional time and its decision to participate in the hearing, Patrick, 102 N.C. App. at 367, 402 S.E.2d at 459, Plaintiff waived the right to object to Trillium Construction’s summary judgment motion on notice-related grounds.

Rule 56(c) requires at least ten days’ notice of a summary judgment hearing, even when the party awarded judgment did not move for it.

Buckner v. TigerSwan, Inc. · filed 2015-12-15Rule 56(c)

Although Rule 56 does not require a party to move for summary judgment to be entitled to it, it does require at least ten days’ notice of the time fixed for the hearing.

Rule 56(c) requires service of a summary judgment motion at least ten days before the hearing, but a party waives an objection to shorter notice by participating without objecting or requesting more time.

Badin Shores Resort Owners Ass'n, Inc. v. Handy Sanitary Dist. · filed 2018-02-06Rule 56(c)

BSR correctly notes that N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 56(c) provides that a summary judgment “motion shall be served at least 10 days before the time fixed for the hearing” and that, in the present case, Handy’s summary judgment motion was served seven days before the hearing, rather than ten days. ... In the present case, BSR attended the hearing and participated in it, without requesting a continuance, objecting, or arguing that BSR needed more time to prepare. ... We conclude that BSR waived any objection to the timeliness of the service of Handy’s summary judgment motion.

Rule 56(c) requires 10 days’ prior notice of a summary judgment motion; participating in a hearing on motions in limine does not impliedly waive that requirement when the party objects to the lack of notice.

Gary v. Wigley · filed 2020-06-02Rule 56(c)

Defendant had not filed the required 10-day prior notice of a motion for summary judgment before the hearing on the parties’ motions in limine. Plaintiff did not impliedly waive the 10-day notice requirement of Rule 56(c) through her counsel’s participation in the hearing on the motions in limine. The trial court erred by granting summary judgment in favor of Defendant without the requisite 10-day prior notice.

Rules 6(d) and 56(c) require a party moving for summary judgment to serve a supporting affidavit at least ten days before the hearing.

D.V. Shah Corp. v. Vroombrands · filed 2022-11-01Rules 6(d), 56(c)

Rules 6(d) and 56(c) of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure required Plaintiff to serve the affidavit at least ten days before the 24 May 2021 hearing, which Plaintiff failed to do.

Rule 56(c) requires at least 10 days’ notice of a summary judgment hearing.

In re the Will of Edgerton · filed 1975-07-02Rule 56(c)

G.S. 1A-1, Rule 56(c) expressly provides for at least 10 days’ notice of the date set for the hearing on a motion for summary judgment. ... By receiving oral testimony, the trial court clearly proceeded under Rule 56 and caveator was not given proper notice.

Rule 56(c) bars summary judgment when the pleadings raise genuine issues of material fact.

Phil Mechanic Construction Co. v. Gibson · filed 1976-08-04(c)

However, since defendants denied in their answer that the contract provision relating to finance charges and attorneys’ fees was filled in when they executed the contract, the pleadings raised genuine issues of material fact, and summary judgment under G.S. 1A-1, Rule 56(c) on these two issues should not have been rendered.

Rule 56 places the burden on the moving party to establish that no genuine issue of material fact exists and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Ellis v. Mullen · filed 1977-11-02Rule 56

The burden was on defendant to establish that there is no genuine issue of any material fact and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Rule 56 permits summary judgment when there is no genuine issue of material fact and the matter can be decided as a question of law.

Hanner v. Duke Power Co. · filed 1977-12-21

The sole question presented by plaintiff on this appeal is whether there is a genuine issue of material fact which will preclude summary judgment in favor of defendant. See G.S. 1A-1, Rule 56. ... There being no ambiguity in the written contract, and, consequently, no genuine issue of material fact, the rights of the parties became a question of law and summary judgment in favor of defendant was properly granted.

Rule 56(c) requires summary judgment to be denied when the record raises a genuine issue of material fact.

Ralph Stachon & Associates, Inc. v. Greenville Broadcasting Co. · filed 1978-03-07(c)

We hold that the defendant raised a genuine issue of material fact, supported by its affidavit and deposition in response to the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the issue of whether or not the note in question is due and payable.

Rule 56(c) requires the court to determine whether a genuine issue of material fact exists before granting summary judgment.

Hale v. Duke Power Co. · filed 1979-03-06Rule 56(c)

The question to be determined on a motion for summary judgment is whether there exists any genuine issue as to any material fact. G.S. 1A-1, Rule 56(c).

Rule 56(c) requires a genuine issue of material fact to avoid summary judgment.

Odom v. Little Rock & I-85 Corp. · filed 1979-03-06Rule 56(c)

On this point there is no genuine issue of material fact, as is required to avoid summary judgment. G.S. 1A-1, Rule 56(c).

Rule 56(c) permits summary judgment when the asserted factual disputes are not material to the issues the court may decide.

Courtney v. Courtney · filed 1979-03-20Rule 56(c)

In considering the motion for summary judgment, the trial court correctly concluded that there were no genuine issues as to any material fact concerning the granting of full faith and credit to the Texas judgment and, therefore, properly determined that specific performance was appropriate.

Rule 56(c) permits summary judgment when the opposing party fails to show a genuine issue of material fact.

Lula Conrad Hoots Memorial Hospital v. Hoots · filed 1979-04-03Rule 56(c)

In our opinion, defendant has failed in the face of plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and the evidence offered in support thereof to show that a genuine issue of material fact exists. The summary judgment in favor of plaintiff is affirmed.

Rule 56(c) ordinarily makes summary judgment inappropriate when the reasonableness of a party’s actions depends on subjective intent.

Smith v. Currie · filed 1979-04-17Rule 56(c)

It is only in the most exceptional case that the movant would be entitled to summary judgment when the issue, as here, concerns the reasonableness of his actions. Thus, because of the nature of the issue in this case, summary judgment for the defendant was inappropriate.

Rule 56(c) bars summary judgment when a genuine issue of material fact remains about whether an employee acted within the scope of employment.

Thomas v. Poole · filed 1980-02-19Rule 56(c)

Since the defendant corporation has failed to establish that there was no genuine issue of a material fact relating to the doctrine of respondeat superior, the ruling of the trial court allowing summary judgment for the defendant corporation on this question was error.

Under Rule 56, an opposing affidavit must create a triable factual issue to defeat a supported motion for summary judgment.

Nye v. Lipton · filed 1981-01-06Rule 56

We hold that the defendant’s affidavit does not so contradict the plaintiff’s affidavits as to create a triable issue.

Rule 56(c) requires denial of summary judgment when an ambiguous contract creates a genuine issue of material fact.

Southland Associates, Inc. v. Peach · filed 1981-06-02Rule 56(c)

In ruling on a motion for summary judgment the court does not resolve issues of fact and must deny the motion if there is any genuine issue of material fact. ... Due to this ambiguity we hold that a genuine issue of material fact exists and therefore summary judgment in favor of plaintiff was improperly entered.

Rule 56(c) does not permit summary judgment when a genuine dispute over a material fact remains.

Atkins v. Beasley · filed 1981-07-07Rule 56(c)

There is a genuine issue of disputed fact, however, as to whether there is a need for the drainage tile. ... For these reasons, summary judgment was not proper in this case and the partial summary judgment must be reversed.

Rule 56(c) does not permit summary judgment when reasonable minds could draw different conclusions from the forecast evidence.

Smith v. Dickinson · filed 1982-05-04Rule 56(c)

Summary judgment is appropriate “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the 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.” G.S. 1A-1, Rule 56(c). ... Since reasonable minds may differ as to the conclusion to be drawn on this issue from the forecast evidence, summary judgment for plaintiffs is inappropriate.

Rule 56 permits summary judgment when no genuine issue of material fact requires a trial.

Texaco, Inc. v. Creel · filed 1982-06-15

Upon a motion for summary judgment, the trial court does not attempt to resolve issues of fact; rather, it determines whether there is a genuine issue of material fact necessitating a trial. ... In the case before us, we find no genuine issue of material fact.

Rule 56(c) precludes summary judgment when the evidence presents a genuine issue of material fact.

Rippy v. Blackwell · filed 1983-05-03Rule 56(c)

There are clearly conflicts in the evidence. The case is, therefore, not one for summary judgment.

Rule 56(c) permits summary judgment when undisputed facts show no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Sharpe v. Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance · filed 1983-06-07Rule 56(c)

The undisputed facts indicate no genuine issue of material fact, and establish that defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Summary judgment for defendant thus was proper.

Rule 56(c) permits summary judgment when there is no genuine issue of material fact.

Justus v. Deutsch · filed 1983-06-21Rule 56(c)

Summary judgment under G.S. 1A-1, Rule 56(c) is proper when there is “no genuine issue as to any material fact....”

Rule 56(c) requires denial of summary judgment when the evidence forecast shows a genuine issue of fact for trial.

Southeastern Asphalt and Concrete Co. v. American Defender Life Ins. Co. · filed 1984-06-19Rule 56(c)

Because a forecast of the plaintiffs evidence does demonstrate that a genuine issue of fact remains for trial, we hold that summary judgment was improperly granted in favor of the defendant-insurance company.

Rule 56(c) does not permit summary judgment when the evidence raises genuine disputes of material fact that a trier of fact must resolve.

All in One Maintenance Service v. Beech Mountain Construction Co. · filed 1984-08-21Rule 56(c)

With respect to these matters concerning the intent of the parties in executing the release, the record is far from conclusive factually and does not establish that defendant was entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. The many disputed questions of fact raised by the evidentiary forecast must be resolved by a trier of fact and are not appropriately settled by summary judgment.

Rule 56(c) permits summary judgment only when no genuine issue of material fact exists and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Lee v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. · filed 1984-10-02Rule 56(c)

Summary judgment is proper only when the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Summary judgment is improper when the evidence raises a genuine issue of material fact about whether a parent’s conduct was willful.

In re Morgan · filed 1984-12-04Rule 56(c)

This forecast of evidence raises a genuine issue of material fact as to whether respondent’s lack of contact with Tonya was compelled by the petitioners’ behavior and was because of concern for the well-being of Tonya and for her own physical safety; and whether any decision by respondent to avoid contact with Tonya was the product of petitioners’ abusive and coercive behavior and thus not wilful. ... Summary judgment was, therefore, improvidently granted.

Rule 56(c) does not permit summary judgment when the existence of a binding agreement must be decided by the trier of fact.

Johnson v. Brown · filed 1984-12-18Rule 56(c)

Whether Baity and Brown entered into a binding agreement or contract to release Brown from his promise to reconvey is a question which must be answered by the trier of fact, and we therefore reverse the trial court’s summary judgment in favor of plaintiffs as to Brown.

Rule 56(c) permits summary judgment only when no genuine issue of material fact exists and a party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Northwestern Bank v. Gladwell · filed 1985-02-05Rule 56(c)

Summary judgment is proper under G.S. 1A-1, Rule 56(c) only when “the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the 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.” ... We thus hold that summary judgment was improperly entered.

Rule 56 permits summary judgment only when the record shows no genuine issue of material fact and a party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Laughter v. Southern Pump & Tank Co. · filed 1985-06-04

Before entry of summary judgment the court must determine by the record that no genuine issue of material fact exists and that a party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. ... After reviewing the record we have determined that there is a genuine issue of material fact about which reasonable minds could differ that must be resolved by the jury.

Rule 56(c) does not permit summary judgment when an opposing affidavit raises a genuine issue of material fact about a defense asserted to bar the action.

Cox v. Cox · filed 1985-06-18Rule 56(c)

Since plaintiff's affidavit raises a genuine issue of material fact as to the validity of the separation agreement asserted in bar of the action for equitable distribution, the court improvidently granted defendant's motion for summary judgment.

Rule 56(c) bars summary judgment when the evidence raises a genuine issue of material fact.

Lambe-Young, Inc. v. Austin · filed 1985-07-02Rule 56(c)

We merely hold that because there was proper evidence before the trial court which raises this issue of fact, summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff was improperly granted.

Rule 56 requires denial of summary judgment when the evidence presents a genuine issue of material fact.

Warren v. Rosso and Mastracco, Inc. · filed 1985-12-03Rule 56

The question here is not whether plaintiffs version of the facts will be believed by the jury but whether there is a genuine issue of material fact. As the foregoing shows, there is a genuine issue of material fact.

Rule 56 permits summary judgment only when there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Rose v. Currituck County Board of Education · filed 1986-11-25Rule 56

A motion for summary judgment is proper only when there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. ... Considering the affidavits of both parties, including the exhibits attached thereto, we hold there exists a genuine issue of fact as to whether plaintiff intended to resign as a career teacher or whether he intended to resign only as a principal.

Rule 56 summary judgment is improper when the pleadings and discovery materials create a genuine issue of material fact.

McNeil v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. · filed 1987-02-17Rule 56

For now, however, the pleadings and discovery materials create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the hit-and-run vehicle caused plaintiffs alleged damages in an unbroken “chain collision.” Accordingly, we hold that the trial court erred in granting defendant’s N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 56 motion for summary judgment.

Rule 56 permits summary judgment when the record presents no genuine issue of material fact and only a question of law remains.

Town of Hazelwood v. Town of Waynesville · filed 1987-07-07Rule 56

The materials before the trial court presented “no genuine issue of material fact,” N.C.G.S. § 1A-1, Rule 56, but purely a question of law as to the validity of defendant Town of Waynesville’s voluntary annexation of the Plott Creek subdivision.

Rule 56 makes summary judgment improper when the evidence presents a genuine issue of material fact.

Wilkes County Vocational Workshop, Inc. v. United Sleep Products, Inc. · filed 1988-03-09Rule 56

There is, instead, a genuine issue of material fact as to whether plaintiff manufactured and delivered its product pursuant to a contractual arrangement with the individual defendant. Summary judgment in favor of the individual defendant thus was improper.

Rule 56(c) permits summary judgment only when the record shows no genuine issue of material fact and a party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Herbert v. Browning-Ferris Industries of South Atlantic, Inc. · filed 1988-05-31Rule 56(c)

A motion for summary judgment is properly granted under N.C.G.S. § 1A-1, Rule 56(c) of the Rules of Civil Procedure “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the 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.”

Rule 56 makes summary judgment improper when the evidence raises a genuine issue of material fact about a valid defense.

Egan v. Guthrie · filed 1989-06-20Rule 56

Summary judgment is proper when there is no genuine issue of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. ... Defendants have therefore established the existence of genuine issues of material fact making a grant of summary judgment for plaintiff improper in this case.

Rule 56(c) does not permit summary judgment when a material question about a person’s reasonable belief remains for the jury.

Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Nationwide Mutual Insuramce · filed 1989-08-15Rule 56(c)

Consequently, in cases such as the one at bar, where there is a question as to a party’s subjective belief, the question should be submitted to the jury because state of mind is a question of face.

Rule 56(c) permits summary judgment only when no genuine issue of material fact exists and a party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Clark v. Brown · filed 1990-07-03Rule 56(c)

Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine issue of material fact and any party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. N.C.G.S. § 1A-1, Rule 56(c) (Cum. Supp. 1989). ... When defendant’s presumption of good faith rebuts plaintiff’s presumption of actual malice, plaintiff assumes the burden of showing actual malice, and our review of the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff shows genuine issues of material fact on both the falsity of the charge and the existence of actual malice, precluding entry of summary judgment for defendant.

Rule 56(c) precludes summary judgment when material facts are genuinely disputed.

Harroff v. Harroff · filed 1990-12-04Rule 56(c)

It is clear that summary judgment was inappropriate where these issues of material facts existed.

Rule 56 does not permit summary judgment when genuine issues of material fact remain.

White v. Bowers · filed 1991-02-19Rule 56

Since genuine issues of material fact exist, summary judgment was inappropriate.

Rule 56(c) permits summary judgment only when the pleadings and discovery materials establish no genuine issue of material fact.

Lenzer v. Flaherty · filed 1992-07-07(c)

Summary judgment is only appropriate where the parties’ pleadings and discovery materials establish there is no genuine issue of material fact. ... Giving plaintiff as non-movant all favorable inferences that may reasonably be drawn from the evidence before the trial court, as we must, we find that each of these three claims raises controverted factual issues sufficient to withstand defendants’ motion under N.C.G.S. § 1A-1, Rule 56(c).

Rule 56(c) permits summary judgment only when no genuine issue of material fact exists and a party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Transall, Inc. v. Protective Insurance · filed 1992-08-18Rule 56(c)

Summary judgment is proper if “the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the 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. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 56(c) (1990). ... In our opinion, a genuine issue of material fact is raised as to how the premium to be charged was to be calculated, and a trier of fact should determine the premium amount due. Therefore, the trial court erred in granting summary judgment.

Rule 56 permits summary judgment only when there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

AT&T Family Federal Credit Union v. Beaty Wrecker Service, Inc. · filed 1993-01-08Rule 56

N.C.G.S. § 1A-1, Rule 56 provides that summary judgment is proper only when the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, admissions, and affidavits disclose no genuine issue of material fact, entitling the moving party to judgment as a matter of law. ... Summary judgment was therefore improper.

Rule 56(c) permits summary judgment when no genuine issue of material fact exists and the defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Black v. Western Carolina University · filed 1993-03-02Rule 56(c)

“Summary judgment may not be granted if there is any genuine issue as to any material fact.” ... Accordingly, the trial court’s entry of summary judgment in favor of the appellees is affirmed.

Rule 56 does not permit summary judgment when a material fact necessary to a claim remains in issue.

Eury v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance · filed 1993-03-02

Assuming arguendo, that the plaintiff has asserted a viable claim, summary judgment is inappropriate because a material fact necessary to the plaintiff’s claim remains in issue.

Rule 56(c) permits summary judgment only when there is no genuine issue of material fact.

APAC-Carolina, Inc. v. Greensboro-High Point Airport Authority · filed 1993-07-06Rule 56(c)

At the outset, we note that summary judgment is only appropriate where there are no genuine issues of material fact. N.C.G.S. § 1A-1, Rule 56(c) (1990). After reviewing plaintiffs’ arguments, we conclude that summary judgment was appropriately granted on several of the issues before us. However, we hold that summary judgment was improperly entered on the issue of the accuracy of the measurements of unclassified excavation.

Rule 56(c) allows summary judgment when the record, viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, shows no genuine issue of material fact and entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.

First Healthcare Corp. v. Rettinger · filed 1995-05-02Rule 56(c)

Summary judgment is appropriate when "the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, ... [viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party,] show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that a[ ] party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." G.S. 1A-1, Rule 56(c).

Under Rule 56(c), an expert opinion that is inherently incredible in light of the undisputed evidence does not create a genuine issue of material fact sufficient to defeat summary judgment.

Mickles v. Duke Power Co. · filed 1995-11-03Rule 56(c)

In view of the uncontroverted evidence that while roll-out occurs, it is rare, and that except for three widely scattered instances over a sixteen-year period, defendant’s linemen had spent millions of man-hours aloft with no roll-out, Larks’ opinion is inherently incredible. Such evidence does not suffice to create a genuine issue of material fact for purposes of determining the appropriateness of summary judgment.

Rule 56(c) does not permit summary judgment when the evidence raises a genuine issue of material fact.

Thompson v. Three Guys Furniture Co. · filed 1996-05-07Rule 56(c)

Summary judgment is proper “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the 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. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 56(c). ... Summary judgment was thus not proper on this issue.

Rule 56(c) requires denial of summary judgment when a genuine issue of material fact remains.

Nourse v. Food Lion, Inc. · filed 1997-08-19Rule 56(c)

In summary, because there are genuine issues of material fact presented on at least one of the issues relating to the defendant's negligence and as to the plaintiff's contributory negligence, summary judgment was improper.

Rule 56(c) requires denial of summary judgment when genuine factual disputes remain over negligence or contributory negligence.

Smith v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. · filed 1998-01-06Rule 56(c)

After a careful review of the evidence in this case, we find that a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether defendant was negligent, as well as whether plaintiff was contributorily negligent. Therefore, the trial court did not err in denying defendant’s motion for summary judgment as to both of these issues.

Rule 56(c) permits summary judgment only when no genuine issue of material fact remains and a party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Williford v. Atlantic American Properties, Inc. · filed 1998-05-05Rule 56(c)

At the outset, we first note that summary judgment is appropriate only “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the 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.” ... Here, questions of fact remain as to whether the parties agreed to the same thing in the same sense and as to all the terms. Therefore, the trial court erred by granting summary judgment for defendant.

Rule 56(c) makes summary judgment inappropriate when the evidence raises a genuine issue of material fact.

Massey v. Duke University · filed 1998-05-16Rule 56(c)

Given this factual dispute over what happened during the autopsy discussion, summary judgment was inappropriate.

Rule 56(c) permits summary judgment when the nonmoving party fails to forecast evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact.

Williams v. 100 Block Associates, Ltd. Partnership · filed 1999-04-06Rule 56(c)

In the case before our Court, plaintiff did not offer expert testimony, nor did he forecast evidence of any knowledge by or notice to 100 Block of prior problems with the elevators, thereby failing to create a genuine issue of material fact.

Rule 56(c) precludes summary judgment when a genuine issue of material fact remains about whether a defendant exercised reasonable care.

Brown v. Roth · filed 1999-04-20Rule 56(c)

Thus genuine issues of material fact exist as to whether Defendant exercised reasonable care in obtaining and communicating to Plaintiff the heated square footage of the Roths’ house, and summary judgment was not proper on the breach of fiduciary duty and negligent misrepresentation claims.

Rule 56(c) permits summary judgment when no genuine issue of material fact exists and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Keech v. Hendricks · filed 2000-12-29(c)

Therefore, in order for this Court to uphold the trial court’s grant of the present defendant’s summary judgment motion, we must find that the evidence in the record before us supports no other conclusion “as to any material fact” but that defendant intended to push plaintiff, thereby making defendant entitled to summary judgment “as a matter of law.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 56(c) (1999).

Rule 56(c) makes summary judgment inappropriate when the record shows a genuine issue of material fact.

Phillips v. Restaurant Management of Carolina, L.P. · filed 2001-09-18Rule 56(c)

See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 56(c) (1999) (Summary judgment is inappropriate when the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show a genuine issue as to any material fact). We agree.

Rule 56(c) requires summary judgment to be denied when genuine issues of material fact remain for a fact-finder.

Hemric v. Groce · filed 2002-12-03Rule 56(c)

Accordingly, there are genuine issues of material fact that must be determined by a fact-finder. See N.C.G.S. § 1A-1, Rule 56(c) (2001).

Rule 56(c) does not permit summary judgment when a nonconclusive expert report and opposing affidavits leave genuine issues of material fact.

Porter v. American Credit Counselors Corp. · filed 2002-12-03Rule 56(c)

Summary judgment is appropriate when the “pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the 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.R. Civ. P. 56(c). ... Since the parties and the trial court are not bound by Asbury’s conclusions, there are viable issues of fact.

Summary judgment is improper when the record does not establish whether a material factual issue exists as a matter of law.

Liberty Mutual Insurance v. Pennington · filed 2002-12-20Rule 56(c)

Therefore, the record demonstrates neither the presence nor the absence of material prejudice as a matter of law. Accordingly, we hold that the issue of whether defendants are barred from recovering UIM benefits for failure to comply with the notice provisions of the policy is not yet ripe for summary judgment and that the trial court erroneously entered judgment in favor of plaintiff.

Rule 56 does not permit summary judgment when material questions of fact remain about undue influence in a will caveat.

In Re the Will of Smith · filed 2003-07-01Rule 56

Whether these or other factors exist and whether executor unduly influenced decedent in the execution of the Will are material questions of fact. The trial court erred in granting summary judgment to executor on the issue of undue influence.

Rule 56(c) does not permit summary judgment when the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the opposing party, presents genuine issues of material fact.

Pintacuda v. Zuckeberg · filed 2003-08-05Rule 56(c)

Because the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, presents issues of fact as to both proximate cause and contributory negligence, we reverse the superior court’s order granting summary judgment.

Rule 56 requires denial of summary judgment when a genuine issue of material fact remains.

Erwin v. Tweed · filed 2003-08-05Rule 56

Accordingly, a genuine issue of material fact exists, and the trial court erred in granting summary judgment.

Rule 56(c) precludes summary judgment on coverage when a genuine issue of material fact remains about whether a person is insured.

Carlson v. Old Republic Insurance · filed 2003-09-16Rule 56(c)

Because his status as an insured depended on whether Ward was acting within the scope of his duties as an officer, director or stockholder with Corporate Air or as an independent contractor, a genuine issue of material fact remained in regards to coverage for the Estate of Kelly Ward under both the Airport Policy and the Aviation Policy. Thus, the court’s denial of plaintiff’s summary judgment motion on the issue of whether Old Republic had a duty to defend and indemnify the Estate of Kelly Ward was proper as was the denial of defendant’s summary judgment motion seeking a declaration that coverage did not exist under either policy.

Rule 56(c) permits summary judgment when the record shows no genuine issue of material fact and a party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Finley Forest Condominium Ass'n v. Perry · filed 2004-04-20Rule 56(c)

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 56(c) (2003) proscribes that summary judgment is appropriate only “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that any party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” ... Plaintiff’s evidence is insufficient to create a genuine issue that DHC owed a duty to plaintiff to waterproof the buildings.

Rule 56(c) permits summary judgment only when there is no genuine issue of material fact and a party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Smith-Price v. Charter Behavioral Health Systems · filed 2004-05-18Rule 56(c)

Therefore, there are genuine issues of fact as to whether defendant Laws acted in good faith in accusing plaintiff of sexual harassment and the trial court should not have granted summary judgment as to her claim for defamation.

Rule 56(c) precludes summary judgment when conflicting evidence creates a genuine issue of material fact.

Howerton v. Arai Helmet, Ltd. · filed 2004-06-25(c)

Thus, even if the Court of Appeals appropriately considered Professor Hurt’s published report, there is nevertheless a legitimate conflict of evidence raised by Professor Hurt’s deposition testimony that creates a genuine issue of material fact precluding summary judgment under Rule 56 of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure.

Summary judgment is improper when the opposing party sets forth specific facts creating a genuine issue about a material contract term.

Burlington Ins. Co. v. Fisherman's Bass Cir., Inc. · filed 2004-07-20Rule 56(c)

On these facts, we conclude that defendants have carried their burden of setting forth specific facts showing a genuine issue of material fact for the jury as to whether the contract for insurance agreed upon by the parties included Policy Endorsement BG-G-074 492.

Rule 56(c) does not permit summary judgment when the evidence raises a material factual issue about when a plaintiff should have discovered alleged fraud.

Faw v. Hoover · filed 2005-03-01Rule 56(c)

Accordingly, the evidence raises an issue of material fact, which requires resolution by a jury, regarding when plaintiff, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, should have discovered the vehicle's history and therefore the alleged fraud. For the foregoing reasons, we hold the trial court erred by granting summary judgment to defendant on the basis of the statute of limitation.

Rule 56(c) precludes summary judgment when a genuine issue of material fact remains about testamentary capacity.

In Re the Will of Priddy · filed 2005-07-05Rule 56(c)

Because there are genuine issues of material fact as to whether Caveator has shown that an essential element of testamentary capacity did not exist, we hold that it was error for the trial court to grant Propounder’s motion for summary judgment as to testator’s capacity to execute a will.

Rule 56(c) permits summary judgment only when no genuine issue of material fact exists and a party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Johnson v. Colonial Life & Accident Insurance · filed 2005-09-20Rule 56(c)

Summary judgment is proper “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the 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. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 56(c) (2003). ... Where there was a genuine issue as to a material fact, whether or not there was a breach, the claim for breach of contract was properly submitted to the jury to weigh the evidence and judge- the credibility of the witnesses.

Rule 56(c) precludes summary judgment when the evidence, viewed in the nonmovant’s favor, presents a genuine issue of material fact.

Billings v. Rosenstein · filed 2005-10-18Rule 56(c)

As the evidence, taken in the light most favorable to the Billingses, presents issues of material fact regarding Dr. Mascenik’s breach of the standard of care, summary judgment was not appropriate.

Rule 56(c) requires denial of summary judgment when a genuine issue of material fact remains.

Finova Capital Corp. v. Beach Pharmacy II, Ltd. · filed 2005-12-20Rule 56(c)

Because genuine issues of material fact exist regarding defendants’ alleged breach of the lease agreement, the trial court properly denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and its motion for reconsideration.

Rule 56(c) permits summary judgment only when there is no genuine issue of material fact and a party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Harrison v. City of Sanford · filed 2006-04-04Rule 56(c)

Further, taking the evidence in the light most favorable to the Harrisons, it is evident from the affidavits that a triable issue of fact exists as to whether or not the City engaged in actionable negligence.

Rule 56(c) permits summary judgment when there is no genuine issue of material fact and a party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Feierstein v. N.C. Dept of Env. Nat. Resources · filed 2007-02-16Rule 56(c)

Summary judgment is appropriate when "the pleadings . . . 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. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1 , Rule 56(c). Because defendant has failed to show that the present claim is barred by N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-50 (5), the Full Commission finds there to be genuine issue as to material facts that create a justiciable controversy in this matter. Defendant is not entitled to a judgment as a matter of law and, thus, summary judgment is improper and unwarranted in this matter. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1 , Rule 56(c).

Rule 56(c) allows summary judgment only when no genuine issue of material fact exists and a party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Dawson v. N.C. Dept of Envirn. and Nat. Resources · filed 2007-02-16Rule 56(c)

Summary judgment is appropriate when "the pleadings . . . 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. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1 , Rule 56(c). Because defendant has failed to show that the present claims are barred by N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-50 (5), the Full Commission finds there to be genuine issue as to material facts that create a justiciable controversy in this matter. Defendant is not entitled to a judgment as a matter of law and, thus, summary judgment is improper and unwarranted in this matter. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1 , Rule 56(c).

Rule 56(c) precludes summary judgment when conflicting evidence creates a genuine issue of material fact.

Edmondson v. MacClesfield LP Gas Co., Inc. · filed 2007-04-03Rule 56(c)

This conflict in the evidence precludes summary judgment in Macclesfield’s favor, and we affirm the trial court’s denial of the motion.

Rule 56(c) does not permit summary judgment when the evidence raises a genuine issue of material fact for the jury.

Burgess v. Campbell · filed 2007-04-03Rule 56(c)

Accordingly, plaintiff has demonstrated a genuine issue of material fact for the jury and the trial court’s grant of summary judgment for Dr. Rosen was improper.

Rule 56(c) does not permit summary judgment when a genuine issue of material fact remains for the jury.

Handa v. Munn · filed 2007-04-03Rule 56(c)

In the instant case, the trial court erred by granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment. For example, we believe there are genuine issues of material fact in regard to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 90-21.13(a) which should be decided by the jury.

Summary judgment is improper when evidence viewed in the nonmovant’s favor supports an inference that the limitations period has not expired; the factual issue is for the jury.

Baum v. John R. Poore Builder, Inc. · filed 2007-05-01Rule 56(c)

Based on Plaintiffs’ allegations as to when they gained their knowledge and viewing the evidence submitted to the trial court in the light most favorable to their position, it is clear that at least an inference can be drawn that the limitations period had not expired before Plaintiffs filed their lawsuit, and that, consequently, the issue is for the jury to determine. See Hatem, supra. Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment based on the expiration of the statutes of limitations.

Rule 56(c) precludes summary judgment when a genuine issue of material fact remains about the amount owed on a lien claim.

Park East Sales v. Clark-Langley, Inc. · filed 2007-10-02Rule 56(c)

Summary judgment cannot be sustained based on a claim of lien on property because a genuine issue of material fact exists on whether an unpaid contract balance remains between Clark and plaintiff.

Rule 56(c) requires denial of summary judgment when a genuine issue of material fact remains for the jury.

Pottle v. Link · filed 2007-12-18Rule 56(c)

The record therefore reveals a genuine issue of material fact, such that summary judgment should be denied and the issue preserved for the jury as to whether Defendants’ fences encroached onto Plaintiffs’ easement.

Rule 56 permits summary judgment only when the moving party shows no genuine issue of material fact and entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.

Schenkel & Shultz, Inc. v. Hermon F. Fox & Associates · filed 2008-04-11Rule 56

The party moving for summary judgment is entitled to such judgment only if he can show that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Rule 56(c) permits summary judgment when there is no genuine issue of material fact and a party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Villepigue v. City of Danville, VA · filed 2008-05-06Rule 56(c)

“Summary judgment is appropriate ‘if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that [a] party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.’ ” Summey v. Barker, 357 N.C. 492, 496, 586 S.E.2d 247, 249 (2003) (alteration in original) (quoting N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 56(c)). ... Therefore, even plaintiff’s version of these facts does not raise a material issue of fact as to gross negligence.

Rule 56(c) precludes summary judgment on a punitive damages claim when disputed evidence creates a genuine issue of material fact about the defendant’s conduct.

Cockerham-Ellerbee v. Town of Jonesville · filed 2008-05-06Rule 56(c)

Defendants dispute her account of events, showing that a genuine issue of material fact remains as to Defendants’ conduct. As such, the trial court erred in granting summary judgment to Defendants on Ms. Cockerham-Ellerbee’s claim for punitive damages.

A party opposing summary judgment must forecast substantial evidence to maintain a genuine issue of material fact.

Robinson v. FOREST CREEK LTD. PARTNERSHIP · filed 2011-07-19Rule 56(c)

However, to maintain a genuine issue as to that fact, Plaintiffs must forecast substantial evidence of the existence of that fact.

Rule 56(c) requires denial of summary judgment when an ambiguous settlement agreement leaves a genuine issue of material fact about its interpretation.

Local Social, Inc. v. Stallings · filed 2018-05-09Rule 56(c)

Because paragraph 3(f) is ambiguous, there are genuine issues of material fact as to the interpretation of the Memorandum and, accordingly, the Motion must be denied.

Rule 56(c) permits summary judgment only when no genuine issue of material fact exists, viewing the record in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.

Head v. Gould Killian Cpa Grp., P.A. · filed 2018-05-11Rule 56(c)

Summary judgment is proper if no genuine issue of material fact exists when viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. The record here, when viewed in that light, presents genuine issues of material fact regarding plaintiff's fraudulent concealment claim and the scope and timing of defendants' duties to plaintiff, thus making summary judgment improper in both instances.

Rule 56 permits summary judgment when the plaintiff’s evidence does not create a genuine issue of material fact on an essential element of the claim.

Estate of Tipton by and Through Tipton v. Delta Sigma Phi Fraternity, Inc. · filed 2019-03-19Rule 56

Even assuming, without deciding, that such a duty of care on the part of the Fraternity existed, Plaintiff has failed to establish the existence of a genuine issue of material fact with regard to the question of whether Tipton’s death was proximately caused by the Fraternity’s negligence.

Under Rule 56(c), a dispute about how to evaluate undisputed evidence under the applicable legal standard does not itself require a trial.

New Hanover Cty. Bd. of Educ. v. Stein · filed 2020-04-03Rule 56(c)

On the other hand, a number of the issues that the Court of Appeals believed to require further factual development involve the manner in which the undisputed evidence should be evaluated in light of the applicable legal standard, rather than disputed issues of fact about which further factual development would be appropriate.

Rule 56(c) permits summary judgment when there is no genuine issue of material fact and a party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Bartley v. City of High Point · filed 2020-07-07Rule 56(c)

Summary judgment is appropriate when “the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the 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.”

Rule 56(c) does not permit summary judgment when genuine factual disputes about a waiver defense affect the claim.

Norment v. Rabon · filed 2021-01-0556(c)

The Court has thoroughly reviewed the evidence in the record and finds that substantial issues of genuine fact exist as to whether Norment waived the requirement that NCCOB approval be obtained by July 31, 2014, including: whether Norment knew or should have known that the NCCOB had not approved the Transaction by July 31, 2014; whether his conduct “naturally and justly” led Advantage LLC to believe that Norment was waiving the approval deadline, Guerry, 234 N.C. at 648, 68 S.E.2d at 275; and whether Norment intended to waive the approval deadline.

Rule 56 permits a claim to survive summary judgment when sworn evidence creates a genuine dispute over whether an agreement was signed, even if the claimant has not yet produced a signed copy.

Rossabi Law Pllc v. Greater Greensboro Ent. Grp., LLC · filed 2021-05-05Rule 56(c)

While Plaintiff has not come forward at this stage of the proceeding with a signed copy of the Contingency Agreement, that is not a requirement at summary judgment, and it will ultimately be Plaintiff’s burden at trial to establish the execution and validity of the Contingency Agreement.

Rule 56(c) precludes summary judgment when the evidence, viewed in the nonmoving party’s favor, presents a genuine issue of material fact.

Godwin v. Harvell · filed 2022-03-15Rule 56(c)

Viewed in the light most favorable to, and with all reasonable inferences that could be drawn therefrom to Plaintiff, genuine issues of material fact exist concerning Settlor’s testamentary capacity.

Rule 56 permits summary judgment when no genuine issue of material fact supports the opposing party’s defense.

Waters v. Pumphrey · filed 2022-10-18Rule 56(c)

Viewing all evidence in the light most favorable to Defendant, we conclude Plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on his second summary ejectment action, as no genuine issue of material fact was shown with respect to Defendant’s retaliatory eviction defense.

Rule 56(c) permits summary judgment when no genuine issue of material fact exists and a party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law; a triable dispute over payment precludes it.

Brown v. Onslow Bay Marine Grp., LLC · filed 2022-12-22Rule 56(c)

Summary judgment is appropriate “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the 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.” ... Because there is a triable issue of fact as to whether OBMG has failed to pay principal, interest, and royalties, and therefore defaulted on the $300,000 Note, this dispute of fact is sufficient to warrant denial of the Motion as to the $300,000 Note.

Rule 56(c) does not permit summary judgment when the evidence leaves a genuine issue of material fact for trial.

Hinman v. Cornett · filed 2023-08-01Rule 56(c)

The Cornetts presented evidence sufficient to overcome the Hinmans’ motion to dismiss, and the trial court erred in granting summary judgment for the Hinmans when genuine issues of material fact remained.

Rule 56(c) makes summary judgment improper when a material factual issue remains.

Williams v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Sch. Bd. of Educ. · filed 2023-10-17Rule 56(c)

Therefore, the Commission did not err in denying the Board’s motion for summary judgment because an issue of material fact remains. See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, R. 56(c).

Summary judgment must be denied when conflicting evidence on material facts requires a jury to resolve credibility issues.

N.C. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. Herring · filed 2023-12-15Rule 56(c)

Because the task of resolving such factual discrepancies lies with the jury, the trial court should have denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment.

Rule 56(c) permits summary judgment despite conflicting testimony when the conflict does not create a genuine issue of material fact.

Moseley v. Hendricks · filed 2025-08-22Rule 56(c)

Although witnesses disagreed over exactly where the cart was located at the time of plaintiff’s accident, the inconsistencies in their testimony did not create a genuine issue of material fact precluding summary judgment.

Rule 56(c) precludes summary judgment when the evidence raises a genuine issue of material fact.

Hwang v. Cairns · filed 2025-12-17Rule 56(c)

Ultimately, summary judgment was an inappropriate vehicle for resolving Plaintiff’s tortious-interference claim as Plaintiff has forecast evidence sufficient to raise genuine issues of material fact.

Rule 56(c) precludes summary judgment when genuine disputes over material facts require weighing competing evidence.

Van Camp v. Shaffner · filed 2026-05-06Rule 56(c)

Resolution of these issues depends on the weight and credibility assigned to the parties’ competing evidence, which is not appropriately resolved at the summary judgment stage.

Summary judgment is appropriate only when no genuine issue of material fact exists and a party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

CMD, LLC v. Keith · filed 2026-05-20Rule 56(c)

“Summary judgment is appropriate when no genuine issue of material fact exists, and a party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”

Rule 59 permits a court to allow a remittitur with the successful party’s consent.

REDEVELOPMENT COM'N OF CITY OF DURHAM v. Holman · filed 1976-08-04

This practice of remittitur with the successful party’s consent, as in the case here, has been followed for many years by the courts in this State, and under G.S. 1A-1, Rule 59, the practice is still permissible in our courts.

Rule 59 permits a judge to reduce an excessive verdict on the judge’s own motion only if the party who won the verdict assents.

Leary v. Nantahala Power and Light Co. · filed 1985-08-06Rule 59

Under G.S. 1A-1, Rule 59, and prior North Carolina law, a trial judge may reduce the verdict in his own motion in the event of excessive damages, as long as the party in whose favor the verdict was rendered does not object.

Rule 59(a)(6) authorizes and limits a trial court’s power to remit damages.

Rhyne v. K-Mart Corp. · filed 2004-04-02Rule 59(a)(6)

First, under North Carolina law, a trial court’s power to remit damages is not necessarily inherent, as the exercise of that power is specifically authorized and limited by Rule 59(a)(6) of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure.

Rule 59(a) permits a new trial when a damages award is excessive or lacks sufficient evidentiary support.

Eshelman v. Puma Biotechnology, Inc. · filed 2021-06-23Rule 59(a)(5)–(7)

Rule 59(a) of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure permits a new trial for “[m]anifest disregard by the jury of the instructions of the court,” “[e]xcessive or inadequate damages appearing to have been given under the influence of passion or prejudice,” or “[i]nsufficiency of the evidence to justify the verdict or that the verdict is contrary to law.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 59(a)(5)–(7). ... Accordingly, the district court abused its discretion in failing to grant Puma’s motion for a remittitur or new trial.

Rule 9(b) requires a fraud complaint to allege the material facts and circumstances of the fraud with particularity.

Moore v. Wachovia Bank & Trust Co. · filed 1976-08-04Rule 9(b)

Equally well-established is the requirement that the plaintiff allege all material facts and circumstances constituting the fraud with particularity in the complaint.

Rule 9(b) requires allegations of fraud to state the circumstances with particularity; a general allegation of fraudulent intent is insufficient.

Best v. Perry · filed 1979-05-01Rule 9(b)

Nevertheless, it is required that, “In all averments of fraud, duress or mistake, the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake shall be stated with particularity.” G.S. 1A-1, Rule 9(b). The plaintiff’s allegations do not state with particularity any circumstance by which the defendant fraudulently caused the plaintiff to give him a warranty deed to the property in question. Therefore, the pleadings were insufficient to present a genuine issue as to whether the plaintiff’s warranty deed was obtained by fraud.

Rule 9(b) requires a fraud complaint against a corporation to identify the individuals who made the alleged misrepresentations and specify when and where they were made.

Coley v. North Carolina National Bank · filed 1979-05-01Rule 9(b)

It is not sufficient to conclusorily allege that a corporation made fraudulent misrepresentations; the pleader in such a situation must allege specifically the individuals who made the misrepresentations of material fact, the time the alleged misstatements were made, and the place or occasion at which they were made.

Rule 9(b) requires a plaintiff to plead facts supporting the essential elements of fraud.

Girard Trust Bank v. Belk · filed 1979-06-05Rule 9(b)

The purpose of the prior case law and the present G.S. 1A-1, Rule 9(b), is to require pleading of the facts upon which the plaintiff relies to establish the essential elements of fraud.

Rule 9(b) requires a fraud claim to plead the material circumstances with particularity, including the time, place, and content of the alleged fraud.

Terry v. Terry · filed 1980-05-06Rule 9(b)

Additionally, the plaintiff must sufficiently plead his cause by stating all material facts and circumstances allegedly constituting the fraud “with particularity.” Rule 9(b), G.S. § 1A-1. It has been held by this Court that the rule requires the pleader to state the time, place and content of the alleged fraudulent undertaking.

Rule 9(b) requires a party to plead the circumstances constituting a duress defense with particularity.

Stewart v. Stewart · filed 1983-03-01Rule 9(b)

G.S. 1A-1, Rule 9(b) requires that the circumstances constituting the defense of duress be pled with particularity.

Rule 9(b) requires a complaint to state the circumstances constituting fraud with particularity.

Payne v. North Carolina Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance · filed 1984-04-17Rule 9(b)

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 9(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure requires that circumstances constituting fraud must be stated with particularity.

Rules 9(b) and 15(b) require particular pleading of constructive fraud but permit an inadequately pleaded issue to be tried when the opposing party impliedly consents by failing to object to evidence on it.

Benfield v. Costner · filed 1984-04-03Rule 9(b); Rule 15(b)

The pleading “with particularity” required by G.S. § 1A-1, Rule 9(b) “[i]n all averments of fraud” is complemented by N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 15(b) (1983). ... Therefore, if the opposing party does not object to evidence outside the issues raised by the pleadings, the issue is tried with his “implied consent.” ... The testimony did not go to an issue raised by the pleadings. Defendant failed to object. The issue was tried by “implied consent.”

Rule 9(b) requires a fraud complaint to state the circumstances of fraud with particularity; bare allegations without supporting facts are insufficient.

Beasley v. National Savings Life Insurance · filed 1985-06-04Rule 9(b)

G.S. 1A-1, Rule 9(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure requires that circumstances constituting fraud must be stated with particularity. Assuming arguendo that plaintiff has successfully pleaded the essential or legal elements of a claim for fraud, plaintiff has failed to allege precisely any facts to support these bare allegations.

Rule 9(b) requires fraud allegations to state the circumstances of the fraud with particularity; allegations giving as much detail as reasonably required satisfy that requirement.

Watts v. Cumberland County Hospital System, Inc. · filed 1985-06-04Rule 9(b)

We conclude that the allegations in the amended complaint are sufficient to satisfy the particularity requirement of G.S. 1A-1, Rule 9(b) and to state a claim for relief against Hall based on fraud. Plaintiff alleged all the essential elements of a claim based on fraud and alleged the circumstances surrounding the fraud in as much detail as reasonably should be required.

Rule 9(b) requires the facts constituting fraud to be pleaded with particularity, but permits intent and knowledge to be alleged generally and requires no particular wording.

Carver v. Roberts · filed 1985-12-17Rule 9(b)

Intent and knowledge may be averred generally. G.S. 1A-1, Rule 9(b). While the facts constituting the fraud must be alleged with particularity, there is no requirement that any precise formula be followed or that any certain language be used.

Rule 9(b) requires fraud allegations to state the time, place, and content of the representation, who made it, and what was obtained.

Lackey v. Bressler · filed 1987-08-04Rule 9(b)

In addition, N.C.G.S. § 1A-1, Rule 9(b) requires that “[i]n all averments of fraud . . . the circumstances constituting fraud . . . shall be stated with particularity.” This requirement is met by alleging time, place and content of the fraudulent representation, identity of the person making the representation, and what was obtained as a result of the fraudulent acts or representations.

Rule 9(b) requires fraud and constructive fraud allegations to state the material facts and circumstances with particularity.

Sharp v. Teague · filed 1994-02-15Rule 9(b)

Material facts and circumstances constituting fraud must be plead in a complaint with particularity. N.C.G.S. § 1A-1, Rule 9(b) (1990); Moore v. Wachovia Bank and Trust Co., 30 N.C. App. 390, 391, 226 S.E.2d 833, 835 (1976).

Rule 9(b) requires a fraud complaint against a corporation to identify when the alleged misrepresentation or concealment occurred and who made it.

Trull v. Central Carolina Bank & Trust Co. · filed 1994-12-06Rule 9(b)

A complaint charging fraud against a corporation must specifically allege the time and occasion of the misrepresentation or concealment of material fact and the individual who made the misrepresentation or concealment in order to satisfy the requirements of Rule 9(b).

Rule 9(b) requires allegations of fraud to state the circumstances constituting fraud with particularity, while allowing malice, intent, knowledge, and other conditions of mind to be alleged generally.

Harrold v. Dowd · filed 2002-04-16Rule 9(b)

Rule 9(b) of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure provides in relevant part that: “In all aver-ments of fraud . . . the circumstances constituting fraud . . . shall be stated with particularity. Malice, intent, knowledge, and other condition of mind of a person may be averred generally.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 9(b) (1999).

Rule 9(b) requires fraud claims to be pleaded with particularity.

Food Lion, LLC v. Schuster Marketing Corp. · filed 2005-08-09Rule 9(b)

However, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as well as the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure, require that “special matters,” such as fraud claims, be pled with particularity. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 9(b)(“In all averments of fraud or mistake, the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake shall be stated with particularity.”); N.C.G.S. § 1A-1, Rule 9(b) (same as federal rule).

Rule 9(b) requires fraud and constructive fraud to be pleaded with particularity; allegations supporting each required element can satisfy that requirement when the complaint is read liberally.

Piles v. Allstate Insurance · filed 2007-12-04Rule 9(b)

After a careful review of Ms. Piles's complaint, and bearing in mind the directive to give it a "liberal construction" upon a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, we conclude that the facts and circumstances are alleged with sufficient particularity to support each required element of the claims of fraud and constructive fraud.

Rule 9(b) requires fraud allegations to state the time, place, and content of the representation, who made it, and what was obtained.

S.N.R. Management Corp. v. Danube Partners 141, LLC · filed 2008-04-15Rule 9(b)

Therefore, in the complaint, plaintiff does not allege its claims for fraud with the requisite “particularity” needed to withstand Adams’ and Danube’s 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss.

Rule 9(b) requires fraud allegations to be stated with particularity; allegations taken as true and liberally construed can be sufficient to state a fraud claim.

Triton Industries, Inc. v. Riverwalk in Highlands, LLC · filed 2009-02-17Rule 9(b)

Allegations of fraud must be stated with particularity. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 9(b) (2007). ... Accordingly, taking these allegations as true and affording plaintiff a liberal construction of its complaint as we must, we hold plaintiff alleged facts sufficient to establish a claim for fraud.

Rule 9(b) requires a fraud complaint to state the alleged misrepresentation or concealment with particularity; a bare allegation is insufficient.

State Employees Credit Union v. HENDRYX · filed 2009-12-22Rule 9(b)

This allegation fails to state any facts which, if true, would have constituted such a representation or concealment. SECU's bare-bones allegation is thus insufficient to meet the particularity requirement set forth in Rule 9(b) and explained in Terry.

Rule 9(b) requires fraud to be pleaded with particularity, but a complaint need not reproduce the alleged conversation verbatim to satisfy that requirement.

Hudgins v. Wagoner · filed 2010-06-15Rule 9(b)

The North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 9(b), requires that “[i]n all averments of fraud, duress or mistake, the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake shall be stated with particularity.” ... Accordingly, we hold that plaintiff sufficiently pleaded a cause of action for fraud.

Rule 9(b) requires fraud allegations to identify the time, place, and content of the misrepresentation, who made it, and whether the plaintiffs relied on it.

Birtha v. Stonemor, North Carolina, LLC · filed 2012-05-01Rule 9(b)

These allegations are very general and are not alleged with the required particularity where Plaintiffs failed to state (1) the time, place, or content of the misrepresentations; (2) the particular person making the misrepresentation; and (3) whether Plaintiffs relied on these misrepresentations. Plaintiffs failed to properly allege the fraud claim with particularity, and this assignment is overruled.

Rule 9(b) requires a fraud pleading to allege with particularity the time and place of the misrepresentation and the identity of the person who made it.

Crosby v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. · filed 2015-06-16Rule 9(b)

Plaintiff failed to specifically allege the time and place the alleged fraudulent representation was made and the identity of the person making the representation.

Rule 9(b) requires a fraud claim to plead the circumstances of a false representation with particularity.

Zagaroli v. Neill · filed 2016-12-29Rule 9(b)

Accordingly, the Court concludes that Defendants have not pleaded a false representation with the sufficient particularity required by Rule 9(b) to support their fraud claim.

Rule 9(b) requires fraud allegations to be pleaded with particularity; allegations of fraudulent concealment can satisfy that requirement.

W4 Farms, Inc. v. Tyson Farms, Inc. · filed 2017-07-24Rule 9(b)

Pursuant to Rule 9(b), all allegations of fraud must be pleaded with particularity. ... Therefore, the Court concludes that the allegations of the Second Amended Complaint are sufficient, at the Rule 12(b)(6) stage, to state claims for fraud and fraud in the inducement.

Rule 9(b) requires fraud allegations to state the circumstances of the fraud with particularity; a conspiracy to defraud claim may be dismissed when its underlying fraud claim fails that requirement.

USA Trouser v. Williams · filed 2018-02-20Rule 9(b)

Because USAT failed to plead the underlying claim of fraud with particularity, the conspiracy to defraud claim was properly dismissed by the Business Court.

Rule 9(b) requires the circumstances constituting fraud to be pleaded with particularity.

USA Trouser · filed 2018-02-20Rule 9(b)

Rule 9(b) of our Rules of Civil Procedure requires that “[i]n all averments of fraud . . . the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake shall be stated with particularity.”

Rule 9(b) requires fraud and negligent misrepresentation claims to be pleaded with sufficient particularity.

Herrera v. Charlotte School of Law, LLC · filed 2018-04-20Rule 9(b)

The Court concludes that Plaintiffs have not alleged facts to support their fraud and negligent misrepresentation claims with sufficient particularity as required by Rule 9(b).

Rule 9(b) requires fraud allegations to identify where the alleged misrepresentation was made with sufficient particularity; omitting that location can warrant dismissal.

Alamance Family Practice, P.A. v. Lindley · filed 2018-08-14Rule 9(b)

Although in some instances a failure to state the place a misrepresentation was made may be forgiven, the Court concludes that the Amended Complaint’s failure to allege the place where Kimball and Lindley’s alleged misrepresentations were made runs afoul of Rule 9(b)’s specificity requirement.

Rule 9(b) requires allegations of fraud and negligent misrepresentation to state the alleged misrepresentations with particularity.

Value Health Sols. Inc. v. Pharm. Research Assocs., Inc. · filed 2019-09-06Rule 9(b)

The Court already has concluded that the alleged misrepresentations are stated with sufficient particularity as required by Rule 9(b) in the context of the fraudulent inducement counterclaim. That same analysis applies to the counterclaim for negligent misrepresentation, and Plaintiffs’ argument fails.

Rule 9(b) requires negligent misrepresentation claims to be pleaded with particularity.

Aldridge v. Metro. Life Ins. Co. · filed 2019-12-31Rule 9(b)

However, like Plaintiffs’ fraud claims, their negligent misrepresentation claims must be pleaded with particularity pursuant to Rule 9(b).