Legal Opinion

Monti v. United Services Automobile Ass'n

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided December 15, 1992No. 914SC1141PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ARNOLD, Judge.

The sole issue here is whether the trial court erred in dismissing plaintiff’s complaint for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) “should not be allowed unless the complaint affirmatively shows that plaintiff has no cause of action.” Estridge v. Ford Motor Co., 101 N.C. App. 716, 718, 401 S.E.2d 85, 86, disc. review denied, 329 N.C. 267, 404 S.E.2d 867 (1991). A Rule 12(b)(6) motion “generally tests the legal sufficiency of the complaint: Has the pleader given notice of such facts as will, if true, support a claim for relief under…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Concrete Service Corp. v. Investors Group, Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1986
  2. Sutton v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1989
  3. Murphy v. Milbank Mutual Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1986
  4. Concrete Service Corp. v. Investors Group, Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1986
  5. Fireman's Ins. Co. v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INS. CO.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1988

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. BeaversSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1995
  2. Osborne v. ParisCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2022
  3. Osborne v. ParisCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2022

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API