Legal Opinion

Dixon v. Stuart

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided April 21, 1987No. 8621SC1197PublishedCited by 85 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

HEDRICK, Chief Judge.

A complaint is deemed sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) where no insurmountable bar to recovery appears on the face of the complaint and the complaint’s allegations give adequate notice of the nature and extent of the claim. Detailed fact pleading is not required. Deitz v. Jackson, 57 N.C. App. 275, 291 S.E. 2d 282 (1982). A complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that plaintiff could prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief. Property Owners Assoc. v.…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Hogan v. Forsyth Country Club Co.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1986
  2. Jones v. City of GreensboroCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1981
  3. Deitz v. JacksonCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1982
  4. Snug Harbor Property Owners Ass'n v. CurranCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1981
  5. Woodruff v. MillerCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1983

3Cited by85 opinions

  1. Meyer v. WallsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1997
  2. State v. Ridgeway Brands Manufacturing, LLCSupreme Court of North Carolina · 2008
  3. Johnson v. BollingerCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1987
  4. Block v. County of PersonCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2000
  5. Johnson v. BollingerCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1987

80 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