Coman v. Thomas Manufacturing Co.
Court of Appeals of North Carolina
1Opinion of the Court
ARNOLD, Judge.
Plaintiff contends that the trial court erred in dismissing his complaint for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted. As the defendant made the motion pursuant to G.S. 1A-1, Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted, the allegations of the complaint set forth above must be taken as true for purposes of this appeal. Smith v. Ford Motor Co., 289 N.C. 71, 80, 221 S.E. 2d 282, 288, 79 A.L.R. 3d 651, 659 (1976). Facts as presented by the complaint raise this question for appeal: Does an employee whose contract is not for a definite…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Hogan v. Forsyth Country Club Co.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1986
- Presnell v. PellSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1979
- Smith v. Ford Motor Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1976
- Sides v. Duke UniversityCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1985
- Still v. LanceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1971
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Amos v. Oakdale Knitting Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1992
- McLaughlin v. Barclays American Corp.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1989
- Amos v. Oakdale Knitting Co.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1991
- Amos v. Oakdale Knitting Co.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1991
- Coman v. Thomas Manufacturing Co.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1988
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.