Legal Opinion

Raritan River Steel Co. v. Cherry, Bekaert & Holland

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided February 4, 1986No. Nos. 8526SC811 and 8526SC812PublishedCited by 20 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

WHICHARD, Judge.

I

Plaintiffs appeal from the granting of defendants’ motions to dismiss the complaints for failure to state claims upon which relief can be granted. N.C. Gen. Stat. 1A-1, Rule 12(b)(6). The issue is whether the complaints state claims based on third-party beneficiary contract doctrine and the tort doctrine of negligent misrepresentation. More particularly, we must decide whether a third person not in privity of contract with a certified public accountant has a claim against that accountant for negligent misrepresentation which allegedly results in loss to the third person.

We…

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. Ultramares Corp. v. ToucheNew York Court of Appeals · 1931
  2. Sutton v. DukeSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1970
  3. Biakanja v. IrvingCalifornia Supreme Court · 1958
  4. H. Rosenblum, Inc. v. AdlerSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1983
  5. Davidson & Jones, Inc. v. County of New HanoverCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1979

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

3Cited by20 opinions

  1. Raritan River Steel Co. v. Cherry, Bekaert & HollandSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1991
  2. Touche Ross & Co. v. Commercial Union Ins. Co.Mississippi Supreme Court · 1987
  3. Hoots v. PryorCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1992
  4. Driver v. Burlington Aviation, Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1993
  5. Traxler v. PPG Industries, Inc.District Court, N.D. Ohio · 2016

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

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

Powered by the Exa API