Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 North Carolina opinions name it 3 courts 2009–2020 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by North Carolina courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Moore v. Propergreen2 sentences2020In Moore v. Proper, this Court held that when a trial court dismisses a claim because it does not comply with Rule 9(j), appellate courts only ask whether competent evidence in the record supports the trial court’s findings of fact and those facts support its decision. 366 N.C. 25, 32 , 726 S.E.2d 812, 818 (2012). 2020In Moore v. Proper, this Court held that when a trial court dismisses a claim because it does not comply with Rule 9(j), appellate courts only ask whether competent evidence in the record supports the trial court’s findings of fact and those facts support its decision. 366 N.C. 25, 32 , 726 S.E.2d 812, 818 (2012). | 2 | 2 |
Green v. Freemangreen2 sentences2014See Green v. Freeman, 367 N.C. 136, 146 , 749 S.E.2d 262, 271 (2013) (“The doctrine of piercing the corporate veil is not a theory of liability. 2014See Green v. Freeman, 367 N.C. 136, 146 , 749 S.E.2d 262, 271 (2013) (“The doctrine of piercing the corporate veil is not a theory of liability. | 1 | 1 |
Hill v. Westgreen2 sentences2009When, as Judge Smith did in this case, a trial court dismisses a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim for relief, that dismissal “ ‘operates as an adjudication on the merits unless the court specifies that the dismissal is without prejudice.’ ” Hill v. West, 189 N.C. 2009App. 194, 198 , 657 S.E.2d 698, 700 (2008) (quoting Clancy v. Onslow County, 151 N.C. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in North Carolina. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Southerland v. Kapp
green
2 sentences2015However, unlike a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), the purpose of summary judgment under Rule 56 is not to test the legal sufficiency of the pleadings, but rather, in reviewing evidentiary material from outside the pleadings, "to provide an efficient method for determining whether a material issue of fact actually exists." Southerland v. Kapp, 59 N.C.App. 94 , 95, 295 S.E.2d 602 , 603 (1982). 2015However, unlike a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), the purpose of summary judgment under Rule 56 is not to test the legal sufficiency of the pleadings, but rather, in reviewing evidentiary material from outside the pleadings, "to provide an efficient method for determining whether a material issue of fact actually exists." Southerland v. Kapp, 59 N.C.App. 94 , 95, 295 S.E.2d 602 , 603 (1982). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
County of Durham v. Daye
green
2 sentences2015Therefore, where "a trial court dismisses a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim for relief, that dismissal operates as an adjudication on the merits unless the court specifies that the dismissal is without prejudice." Cnty. of Durham v. Daye, 195 N.C.App. 527 , 532, 673 S.E.2d 683 , 687 (2009) (internal marks omitted). 2015Therefore, where "a trial court dismisses a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim for relief, that dismissal operates as an adjudication on the merits unless the court specifies that the dismissal is without prejudice." Cnty. of Durham v. Daye, 195 N.C.App. 527 , 532, 673 S.E.2d 683 , 687 (2009) (internal marks omitted). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Clancy v. Onslow County
green
1 sentence2009App. 194, 198 , 657 S.E.2d 698, 700 (2008) (quoting Clancy v. Onslow County, 151 N.C. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.