7 North Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 2007–2021 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Matthew Strum v. Exxon Company, Usa, a Division of Exxon Corporation Exxon Corporationgreen2 sentences2021These are garden-variety claims for breach of fiduciary duty, not attempts “to manufacture a tort dispute out of what is, at bottom, a simple breach of contract claim.” Strum v. Exxon Co., USA, 15 F.3d 327, 329 (4th Cir. 1994). 2016Jan. 10, 2011) (applying North Carolina law and distinguishing Schumacher and Ada Liss as fraudulent inducement cases that did not create a separate and distinct duty to prevent dismissal under the economic loss rule). {23} Absent allegations of other separate and distinct duties sufficient to support its tort claims, F2M’s assertion of fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and negligent supervision claims appears, at root, to be an attempt “to manufacture a tort dispute out of what is, at bottom, a simple breach of contract claim.” Strum, 15 F.3d at 329 . | 4 | 5 |
cluster 757756green2 sentences2008See Broussard v. Meineke Discount Muffler Shops, Inc., 155 F.3d 331, 346 (4th Cir. 1998) (“In this, plaintiffs’ case is remarkably like Strum v. Exxon Company, where we found a similar ‘attempt by the plaintiff to manufacture a tort dispute out of what is, at bottom, a simple breach of contract claim’ to be ‘inconsistent both with North Carolina law and sound commercial practice.’ ” (Quoting Strum v. Exxon Company, 15 F.3d 327, 329 (4th Cir. 1994)). 2008See Broussard v. Meineke Discount Muffler Shops, Inc., 155 F.3d 331, 346 (4th Cir.1998) ("In this, plaintiffs' case is remarkably like Strum v. Exxon Company , where we found a similar `attempt by the plaintiff to manufacture a tort dispute out of what is, at bottom, a simple breach of contract claim' to be `inconsistent both with North Carolina law and sound commercial practice.'" (Quoting Strum v. Exxon Company, 15 F.3d 327, 329 (4th Cir.1994))). | 1 | 2 |
Nucor Corp. v. Prudential Equity Group, LLCgreen2 sentences2018Ct. Jan. 5, 2016) (dismissing plaintiff’s 75-1.1 claim where “[defendant] did not owe [plaintiff] a separate and distinct duty not to provide deceptive and misleading information” because the claims were “at bottom, a simple breach of contract claim”); Nucor Corp. v. Prudential Equity Grp., LLC, 189 N.C. 2018App. 731, 739 , 659 S.E.2d 483, 488 (2008) (dismissing 75-1.1 claim where plaintiff “at most” alleged breach of a confidentiality agreement). | 1 | 1 |
Ragsdale v. Kennedygreen2 sentences2014App. 777, 782 , 561 S.E.2d 914, 918 (2002) (citing Ragsdale v. Kennedy, 286 N.C. 130, 138 , 209 S.E.2d 494, 500 (1974)). 2014App. 777, 782 , 561 S.E.2d 914, 918 (2002) (citing Ragsdale v. Kennedy, 286 N.C. 130, 138 , 209 S.E.2d 494, 500 (1974)). | 1 | 1 |
Harrold v. Dowdgreen2 sentences2014Fraud {95} Defendant contends that Plaintiff’s allegations fail to state a claim for fraud as a matter of law, asserting that Plaintiff’s fraud claim represents yet another attempt by Plaintiff to disguise a simple breach of contract claim as something more sinister. {96} “[T]he essential elements of actionable fraud are: (1) false representation or concealment of a material fact, (2) reasonably calculated to deceive, (3) made with intent to deceive, (4) which does in fact deceive, and (5) resulting in damage to the injured party.” Harrold v. Dowd, 149 N.C. 2014App. 777, 782 , 561 S.E.2d 914, 918 (2002) (citing Ragsdale v. Kennedy, 286 N.C. 130, 138 , 209 S.E.2d 494, 500 (1974)). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Food Lion, LLC v. Schuster Marketing Corp.
green
1 sentence2007The result is that, at least at this stage of the case, Plaintiffs’ failure to allege specific facts as to the Defendants’ fraudulent intent is of no legal moment, given that Rule 9(b) allows such an allegation to “be averred generally.” See Schuster, 382 F. Supp. 2d at 799 . 3 2. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
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.
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.