complaint discloses some insurmountable bar in North Carolina

43 North Carolina opinions name it 3 courts 1970–2025 7 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 (12)

Case	Followed	Cited
Sutton v. Dukegreen nc · 1970 · cited in 17 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 1980–2018 2 sentences 2018Rule 12(b)(6) "generally precludes dismissal except in those instances where the face of the complaint discloses some insurmountable bar to recovery," Sutton v. Duke , 277 N.C. 94 , 102, 176 S.E.2d 161 , 166 (1970) (quoting Am. 2018Rule 12(b)(6) "generally precludes dismissal except in those instances where the face of the complaint discloses some insurmountable bar to recovery," Sutton v. Duke , 277 N.C. 94 , 102, 176 S.E.2d 161 , 166 (1970) (quoting Am.	13	17
Energy Investors Fund, L.P. v. Metric Constructors, Inc.green · 2000 · cited in 8 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2003–2022 2 sentences 2006Rule 12(b)(6) “generally precludes dismissal except in those instances where the face of the complaint discloses some insurmountable bar to recovery.” Energy Investors Fund, L.P. v. Metric Constructors, Inc., 351 N.C. 331, 337 , 525 S.E.2d 441, 445 (2000) (internal quotation and citation omitted). 2006Rule 12(b)(6) “generally precludes dismissal except in those instances where the face of the complaint discloses some insurmountable bar to recovery.” Energy Investors Fund, L.P. v. Metric Constructors, Inc., 351 N.C. 331, 337 , 525 S.E.2d 441, 445 (2000) (internal quotation and citation omitted).	5	8
American Dairy Queen Corporation v. Augustyngreen ilnd · 1967 · cited in 10 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 1970–2018 2 sentences 2010Sutton, 277 N.C. at 102 . [29] The Sutton Court further held that Rule 12(b)(6) “generally precludes dismissal except in those instances where the face of the complaint discloses some insurmountable bar to recovery,” quoting from American Dairy Queen Corp. v. Augustyn, 278 F. Supp. 717 (1967). 2009In Sutton v. Duke, the Court further held that Rule 12(b)(6) “generally precludes dismissal except in those instances where the face of the complaint discloses some insurmountable bar to recovery,” quoting from American Dairy Queen Corp. v. Augustyn, 278 F. Supp. 717 (1967).	3	10
Newberne v. DEPT. OF CRIME CONTROLgreen nc · 2005 · cited in 7 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2007–2025 2 sentences 2025Safety, 359 N.C. 782, 784 , 618 S.E.2d 201 , 203–04 (2005)). 2025Safety, 359 N.C. 782, 784 , 618 S.E.2d 201 , 203–04 (2005)).	2	7
Meadows v. Iredell Countygreen ncctapp · 2007 · cited in 4 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2009–2019 2 sentences 2015The third parties and the POA moved to dismiss plaintiffs' derivative claims pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) and/or Rule 12(c) of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure. " Rule 12(b)(6) generally precludes dismissal except in those instances where the face of the complaint discloses some insurmountable bar to recovery." Meadows v. Iredell County, 187 N.C.App. 785 , 787, 653 S.E.2d 925 , 927 (2007) (internal quotation marks omitted). 2015The third parties and the POA moved to dismiss plaintiffs' derivative claims pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) and/or Rule 12(c) of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure. " Rule 12(b)(6) generally precludes dismissal except in those instances where the face of the complaint discloses some insurmountable bar to recovery." Meadows v. Iredell County, 187 N.C.App. 785 , 787, 653 S.E.2d 925 , 927 (2007) (internal quotation marks omitted).	2	4
Ladd v. Estate of Kellenbergergreen nc · 1985 · cited in 3 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 1992–2003 2 sentences 2003“This rule ... generally precludes dismissal except in those instances where the face of the complaint discloses some insurmountable bar to recovery.” Ladd, 314 N.C. at 481 , 334 S.E.2d at 755 . 2003“This rule ... generally precludes dismissal except in those instances where the face of the complaint discloses some insurmountable bar to recovery.” Ladd, 314 N.C. at 481 , 334 S.E.2d at 755 .	1	3
Brown v. Browngreen ncctapp · 1974 · cited in 2 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 1985–2022 2 sentences 2022Brown v. Brown, 21 N.C. 1985Brown v. Brown, 21 N.C.	1	2
Conley v. Gibsonred scotus · 1957 · cited in 2 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2005–2005 2 sentences 2005“Rule 12(b)(6) ‘generally precludes dismissal except in those instances where the face of the complaint discloses some insurmountable bar to recovery.’ ” Energy Investors Fund, L.P. v. Metric Constructors, Inc., 351 N.C. 331, 337 , 525 S.E.2d 441, 445 (2000) (quoting Sutton, 277 N.C. at 102 , 176 S.E.2d at 166 (citation omitted)); cf. Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 , 2 L. 2005“Rule 12(b)(6) ‘generally precludes dismissal except in those instances where the face of the complaint discloses some insurmountable bar to recovery.’ ” Energy Investors Fund, L.P. v. Metric Constructors, Inc., 351 N.C. 331, 337 , 525 S.E.2d 441, 445 (2000) (quoting Sutton, 277 N.C. at 102 , 176 S.E.2d at 166 (citation omitted)); cf. Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 , 2 L.	1	2
Anderson v. SeaScape at Holden Plantation, LLCgreen ncctapp · 2015 · cited in 1 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2019–2019 2 sentences 2019A Rule 12(b)(6) motion should be granted only where “the face of the complaint discloses some insurmountable bar to recovery.” Anderson v. Seascape at Holden Plantation, LLC, 241 N.C. 2019App. 191, 200 , 773 S.E.2d 78, 85 (2015)(quoting Meadows v. Iredell County, 187 N.C.	1	1
Burgess v. Your House of Raleigh, Inc.green · 1990 · cited in 1 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2005–2005 2 sentences 2005Dismissal is proper, however, "when one of the following three conditions is satisfied: (1) the complaint on its face reveals that no law supports the plaintiff's claim; (2) the complaint on its face reveals the absence of facts sufficient to make a good claim; or (3) the complaint discloses some fact that necessarily defeats the plaintiff's claim." Wood v. Guilford Cty., 355 N.C. 161 , 166, 558 S.E.2d 490 , 494 (2002) (citing Oates v. JAG, Inc., 314 N.C. 276 , 278, 333 S.E.2d 222 , 224 (1985)); see also McAllister v. Khie Sem Ha, 347 N.C. 638 , 641-42, 496 S.E.2d 577 , 580-81 (1998) (citing B 2005Dismissal is proper, however, "when one of the following three conditions is satisfied: (1) the complaint on its face reveals that no law supports the plaintiff's claim; (2) the complaint on its face reveals the absence of facts sufficient to make a good claim; or (3) the complaint discloses some fact that necessarily defeats the plaintiff's claim." Wood v. Guilford Cty., 355 N.C. 161 , 166, 558 S.E.2d 490 , 494 (2002) (citing Oates v. JAG, Inc., 314 N.C. 276 , 278, 333 S.E.2d 222 , 224 (1985)); see also McAllister v. Khie Sem Ha, 347 N.C. 638 , 641-42, 496 S.E.2d 577 , 580-81 (1998) (citing B	1	1
McAllister v. Hagreen nc · 1998 · cited in 1 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2005–2005 2 sentences 2005Dismissal is proper, however, "when one of the following three conditions is satisfied: (1) the complaint on its face reveals that no law supports the plaintiff's claim; (2) the complaint on its face reveals the absence of facts sufficient to make a good claim; or (3) the complaint discloses some fact that necessarily defeats the plaintiff's claim." Wood v. Guilford Cty., 355 N.C. 161 , 166, 558 S.E.2d 490 , 494 (2002) (citing Oates v. JAG, Inc., 314 N.C. 276 , 278, 333 S.E.2d 222 , 224 (1985)); see also McAllister v. Khie Sem Ha, 347 N.C. 638 , 641-42, 496 S.E.2d 577 , 580-81 (1998) (citing B 2005Dismissal is proper, however, "when one of the following three conditions is satisfied: (1) the complaint on its face reveals that no law supports the plaintiff's claim; (2) the complaint on its face reveals the absence of facts sufficient to make a good claim; or (3) the complaint discloses some fact that necessarily defeats the plaintiff's claim." Wood v. Guilford Cty., 355 N.C. 161 , 166, 558 S.E.2d 490 , 494 (2002) (citing Oates v. JAG, Inc., 314 N.C. 276 , 278, 333 S.E.2d 222 , 224 (1985)); see also McAllister v. Khie Sem Ha, 347 N.C. 638 , 641-42, 496 S.E.2d 577 , 580-81 (1998) (citing B	1	1
Forrester v. Garrettgreen nc · 1971 · cited in 1 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2003–2003 2 sentences 2003However, where the “requested relief [is] not authorized by statute, the [complaint is necessarily]” defective because “the court [is] powerless to grant [the relief] regardless of what facts could be proved.” Forrester v. Garrett, 280 N.C. 117, 122 , 184 S.E.2d 858, 861 (1971). 2003However, where the “requested relief [is] not authorized by statute, the [complaint is necessarily]” defective because “the court [is] powerless to grant [the relief] regardless of what facts could be proved.” Forrester v. Garrett, 280 N.C. 117, 122 , 184 S.E.2d 858, 861 (1971).	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

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

Also cited on this issue (16)

Case	Cited	Years
Newton v. Standard Fire Insurance green nc · 1976 2 sentences 1981Newton v. Insurance Co., 291 N.C. 203 105, 229 S.E. 2d 297 (1976); Sutton v. Duke, 277 N.C. 94 , 176 S.E. 2d 161 (1970); Winborne v. Winborne, 41 N.C. 1980*Newton v. Insurance Co., 291 N.C. 105 , 229 S.E. 2d 297 (1976); Sutton v. Duke, supra; Winborne v. Winborne, 41 N.C.	3	1980–1981
Winborne v. Winborne green ncctapp · 1979 2 sentences 1981Newton v. Insurance Co., 291 N.C. 203 105, 229 S.E. 2d 297 (1976); Sutton v. Duke, 277 N.C. 94 , 176 S.E. 2d 161 (1970); Winborne v. Winborne, 41 N.C. 1980*Newton v. Insurance Co., 291 N.C. 105 , 229 S.E. 2d 297 (1976); Sutton v. Duke, supra; Winborne v. Winborne, 41 N.C.	3	1980–1981
Lea v. Grier green ncctapp · 2003 1 sentence 2014“This rule . . . generally precludes dismissal except in those instances where the face of the complaint discloses some insurmountable bar to recovery.” Id. (alterations in original).	1	2014–2014
Crouse v. Mineo green ncctapp · 2008 1 sentence 2011Crouse v. Mineo, 189 N.C.	1	2011–2011
Myrtle S. Shull and Walter G. Shull v. Pilot Life Insurance Company green ca5 · 1963 1 sentence 2010Sutton, 277 N.C. at 102 . 38 Or, as here, a counterclaim. [30] Moreover, the Sutton Court quoted Shull v. Pilot Life Ins., 313 F. 2d 445 (5th Cir. 1963), recognizing that survival of a complaint at the Rule 12(b)(6) stage does not necessarily mean that there must be a full-blown trial.	1	2010–2010
Lamar Oci South Corporation v. Stanly County Zoning Board of Adjustment green nc · 2008 1 sentence 2009App. 785, 787 , 653 S.E.2d 925, 927 (2007) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted), disc, review denied, 362 N.C. 236 , 659 S.E.2d 735 (2008).	1	2009–2009
Meadows v. Iredell green nc · 2008 1 sentence 2009App. 785, 787 , 653 S.E.2d 925, 927 (2007) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted), disc, review denied, 362 N.C. 236 , 659 S.E.2d 735 (2008).	1	2009–2009
Jeffries v. Moore neutral nc · 2002 1 sentence 2008Rule 12(b)(6) “ ‘generally precludes dismissal except in those instances where the face of the complaint discloses some insurmountable bar to recovery.’ ” Id.	1	2008–2008
Wood v. Guilford County green nc · 2002 2 sentences 2005Dismissal is proper, however, "when one of the following three conditions is satisfied: (1) the complaint on its face reveals that no law supports the plaintiff's claim; (2) the complaint on its face reveals the absence of facts sufficient to make a good claim; or (3) the complaint discloses some fact that necessarily defeats the plaintiff's claim." Wood v. Guilford Cty., 355 N.C. 161 , 166, 558 S.E.2d 490 , 494 (2002) (citing Oates v. JAG, Inc., 314 N.C. 276 , 278, 333 S.E.2d 222 , 224 (1985)); see also McAllister v. Khie Sem Ha, 347 N.C. 638 , 641-42, 496 S.E.2d 577 , 580-81 (1998) (citing B 2005Dismissal is proper, however, "when one of the following three conditions is satisfied: (1) the complaint on its face reveals that no law supports the plaintiff's claim; (2) the complaint on its face reveals the absence of facts sufficient to make a good claim; or (3) the complaint discloses some fact that necessarily defeats the plaintiff's claim." Wood v. Guilford Cty., 355 N.C. 161 , 166, 558 S.E.2d 490 , 494 (2002) (citing Oates v. JAG, Inc., 314 N.C. 276 , 278, 333 S.E.2d 222 , 224 (1985)); see also McAllister v. Khie Sem Ha, 347 N.C. 638 , 641-42, 496 S.E.2d 577 , 580-81 (1998) (citing B	1	2005–2005
Oates v. Jag, Inc. green nc · 1985 2 sentences 2005Dismissal is proper, however, "when one of the following three conditions is satisfied: (1) the complaint on its face reveals that no law supports the plaintiff's claim; (2) the complaint on its face reveals the absence of facts sufficient to make a good claim; or (3) the complaint discloses some fact that necessarily defeats the plaintiff's claim." Wood v. Guilford Cty., 355 N.C. 161 , 166, 558 S.E.2d 490 , 494 (2002) (citing Oates v. JAG, Inc., 314 N.C. 276 , 278, 333 S.E.2d 222 , 224 (1985)); see also McAllister v. Khie Sem Ha, 347 N.C. 638 , 641-42, 496 S.E.2d 577 , 580-81 (1998) (citing B 2005Dismissal is proper, however, "when one of the following three conditions is satisfied: (1) the complaint on its face reveals that no law supports the plaintiff's claim; (2) the complaint on its face reveals the absence of facts sufficient to make a good claim; or (3) the complaint discloses some fact that necessarily defeats the plaintiff's claim." Wood v. Guilford Cty., 355 N.C. 161 , 166, 558 S.E.2d 490 , 494 (2002) (citing Oates v. JAG, Inc., 314 N.C. 276 , 278, 333 S.E.2d 222 , 224 (1985)); see also McAllister v. Khie Sem Ha, 347 N.C. 638 , 641-42, 496 S.E.2d 577 , 580-81 (1998) (citing B	1	2005–2005
Lee Cycle Center, Inc. v. Wilson Cycle Center, Inc. green ncctapp · 2001 1 sentence 2004Our appellate courts have previously stated that “[t]o withstand a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim in a breach of contract action, a plaintiff’s allegations must either show it was in privity of contract, or it is a direct beneficiary of the contract.” Lee Cycle Ctr., Inc. v. Wilson Cycle Ctr., Inc., 143 N.C.	1	2004–2004
Cline v. Teich for Cline green ncctapp · 1988 1 sentence 2003When deciding a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, “all factual allegations in the complaint are taken to be true.” Cline, 92 N.C.	1	2003–2003
Nationwide Insurance v. Taylor green nc · 1982 1 sentence 1986App. 199 , 284 S.E. 2d 752 (1981), disc. rev. denied, 305 N.C. 302 , 291 S.E. 2d 151 (1982).	1	1986–1986
State v. Branch green nc · 1982 1 sentence 1986App. 199 , 284 S.E. 2d 752 (1981), disc. rev. denied, 305 N.C. 302 , 291 S.E. 2d 151 (1982).	1	1986–1986
Snug Harbor Property Owners Ass'n v. Curran green ncctapp · 1981 2 sentences 1986The rule generally precludes dismissal except in those instances where the face of the complaint discloses some insurmountable bar to recovery. 480 Property Owners Assoc. v. Curran, 55 N.C. 1986*App. 199 , 284 S.E. 2d 752 (1981), disc. rev. denied, 305 N.C. 302 , 291 S.E. 2d 151 (1982).	1	1986–1986
Forbis v. Honeycutt green nc · 1981 2 sentences 1983Forbis v. Honeycutt, 301 N.C. 699 , 273 S.E. 2d 240 (1980). 1983Forbis v. Honeycutt, 301 N.C. 699 , 273 S.E. 2d 240 (1980).	1	1983–1983

Statutes the citing opinions construe

NC § N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1 (21) NC § N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1 (12) NC § N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7A-27 (5) NC § N.C. Gen. Stat. § 55-7-40 (3) NC § N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-16 (3) USC § 42u.s.c.1983 (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