Legal Opinion

Ridley v. JIM WALTER CORPORATION

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided February 2, 1968No. 601PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtLake, J.

The remnant of the complaint remaining after the order of Brock, S.J., obviously states no cause of action against' either defendant. Consequently, there was no error in the order of Latham, S.J., considered without reference to the allegations stricken by the former order of Brock, S.J. The motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that it states no cause of action, which was allowed by the order of Latham, S.J., is equivalent to a demurrer. See McIntosh, North Carolina Practice and Procedure, 2d Ed., §§ 1194, 1195.

The question then arises as to whether there was error in the order of…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Kilpatrick v. . Germania Life Ins. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1905
  2. Allgood v. Wilmington Savings & Trust CompanySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1955
  3. Steffen v. Refrigeration Discount Corp.California Court of Appeal · 1949
  4. Garland v. Union Trust Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1917
  5. Moore v. . CameronSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1885

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Smith Chapel Baptist Church v. City of DurhamSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1999
  2. Dillon v. BMO Harris Bank, N.A.District Court, M.D. North Carolina · 2014
  3. Chesson v. RivesNorth Carolina Business Court · 2016
  4. Colorado Bankers Life Insurance Company v. Academy Financial Assets, LLCDistrict Court, E.D. North Carolina · 2023
  5. SMITH CHAPEL BAPTIST v. City of DurhamSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1999

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

Powered by the Exa API