Tinch v. Video Industrial Services, Inc.

463 S.E.2d 289, 120 N.C. App. 640, 1995 N.C. App. LEXIS 916
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Tinch v. Video Industrial Services, Inc.. Read the opinion of the Court — 129 N.C. App. 69
Court of Appeals of North Carolina·Decided November 7, 1995·No. No. COA95-151·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM

For the reasons stated in Brown v. Friday Services, Inc., 119 N.C. App. 753, 460 S.E.2d 356 (1995), we affirm the entry of summary judgment in this case.

Although plaintiff contends that the trial court erred in hearing defendants’ motion for summary judgment before allowing the parties time for discovery, and before allowing plaintiff’s motion to amend his complaint, we find that even if summary judgment was improperly awarded, plaintiff’s case would not have succeeded on the merits because of our holding in Brown v. Friday Services, Inc., 119 N.C. App. 753, 460 S.E.2d 356 (filed August 15, 1995).

Affirmed.

Panel consisting of:

Judges LEWIS, WYNN, and JOHN.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Tinch v. Video Industrial Services, Inc., 463 S.E.2d 289, 120 N.C. App. 640, 1995 N.C. App. LEXIS 916 (N.C. Ct. App. 1995).

463 S.E.2d 289 (Tinch v. Video Industrial Services, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Brown v. Friday Services, Inc.
460 S.E.2d 356 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1995)