unconditional affirmative defense (North Carolina) · Go Syfert
← North Carolina issues

unconditional affirmative defense in North Carolina

24 North Carolina opinions name it 3 courts 1970–2020 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.

Followed or applied (4)

CaseFollowedCited
Sutton v. Dukegreen
nc · 1970 · cited in 15 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 1972–2020
2 sentences

2020See Sutton v. Duke, 277 N.C. 94, 102 , 176 S.E.2d 161, 166 (1970) (“If the complaint discloses an unconditional affirmative defense which defeats the claim asserted or pleads facts which deny the right to any relief on the alleged claim it will be dismissed.”).

2020See Sutton v. Duke, 277 N.C. 94, 102 , 176 S.E.2d 161, 166 (1970) (“If the complaint discloses an unconditional affirmative defense which defeats the claim asserted or pleads facts which deny the right to any relief on the alleged claim it will be dismissed.”).

915
Skinner v. EF Hutton & Co., Inc.green
nc · 1985 · cited in 4 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2006–2018
2 sentences

2018Hutton & Co. , 314 N.C. 267 , 270, 333 S.E.2d 236 , 238 (1985) ("When [a] complaint states a valid claim but also discloses an unconditional affirmative defense which defeats the asserted claim, [ ] the [12(b)(6) ] motion will be granted and the action dismissed." (citation omitted) ).

2018Hutton & Co. , 314 N.C. 267 , 270, 333 S.E.2d 236 , 238 (1985) ("When [a] complaint states a valid claim but also discloses an unconditional affirmative defense which defeats the asserted claim, [ ] the [12(b)(6) ] motion will be granted and the action dismissed." (citation omitted) ).

24
Sorrells v. M.Y.B. Hospitality Venturesgreen
nc · 1992 · cited in 1 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2018–2018
2 sentences

2018Specifically, the Court stated that "defendant's motion to dismiss was properly granted since plaintiff's complaint 'discloses an unconditional affirmative defense which defeats the claim asserted [and] pleads facts which deny the right to any relief on the alleged claim.' " Id. at 648 , 423 S.E.2d at 73 (alteration in original) (quoting Sutton v. Duke , 277 N.C. 94 , 102, 176 S.E.2d 161 , 166 (1970) ).

2018Specifically, the Court stated that "defendant's motion to dismiss was properly granted since plaintiff's complaint 'discloses an unconditional affirmative defense which defeats the claim asserted [and] pleads facts which deny the right to any relief on the alleged claim.' " Id. at 648 , 423 S.E.2d at 73 (alteration in original) (quoting Sutton v. Duke , 277 N.C. 94 , 102, 176 S.E.2d 161 , 166 (1970) ).

11
Locklear v. Lanutigreen
ncctapp · 2006 · cited in 1 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2012–2012
2 sentences

2012Id. at 383-84 , 626 S.E.2d at 714 (citations, quotation marks, and brackets omitted). “[A] motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Rule 12(c) should only be granted when the movant clearly establishes that no material issue of fact remains to be resolved and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Cash v. State Farm Mut.

2012Id. at 383-84 , 626 S.E.2d at 714 (citations, quotation marks, and brackets omitted). “[A] motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Rule 12(c) should only be granted when the movant clearly establishes that no material issue of fact remains to be resolved and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Cash v. State Farm Mut.

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

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

Also cited on this issue (4)

CaseCitedYears
American Dairy Queen Corporation v. Augustyn green
ilnd · 1967
2 sentences

1974“In further appraising the sufficiency of a complaint Mr. Justice Black said, in Conley v. Gibson, supra at 45-46, ‘ [W] e follow, of course, the accepted rule that a complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.’ ‘This rule,’ said the Court in American Dairy Queen Corporation v. Augustyn, 278 F. Supp. 717 , ‘generally *437 precludes dismissal except in those instances where the face of the complaint discloses some insurmountable bar to recover

1973In further appraising the sufficiency of a complaint Mr. Justice Black said, in Conley v. Gibson, supra at 45-46, “[W]e follow, of course, the accepted rule that a complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it *73 appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.” “This rule,” said the Court in American Dairy Queen Corporation v. Augustyn, 278 F. Supp. 717 , “generally precludes dismissal except in those instances where the face of the complaint discloses some insurmountable bar to recovery.”

31970–1974
Vecellio & Grogan, Inc. v. Piedmont Drilling & Blasting, Inc. green
ncctapp · 2007
1 sentence

2018As Defendant acknowledges, "[n]o North Carolina cases directly address the point of how assumption of the risk relates to a claim based on [a] defendant's strict liability for damages arising from an ultra[ ]hazardous activity." Vecellio & Grogan, Inc. v. Piedmont Drilling & Blasting, Inc. , 183 N.C.

12018–2018
Brown v. Brown green
ncctapp · 1974
1 sentence

1995Brown v. Brown, 21 N.C.

11995–1995
Powell v. County of Haywood green
ncctapp · 1972
2 sentences

1975In Sutton v. Duke, 277 N.C. 94, 102 , 176 S.E. 2d 161, 166 (1970), the North Carolina Supreme Court stated the general rule: “If the complaint discloses an unconditional affirmative defense which defeats the claim asserted or pleads facts which deny the right to any relief on the alleged claim it will be dismissed.” Accord, Powell v. County of Haywood, 15 N.C.

1975App. 109 , 189 S.E. 2d 785 (1972).

11975–1975

Statutes the citing opinions construe

NC § N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1 (13) NC § N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1 (6) NC § N.C. Gen. Stat. § 78A-8 (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