Legal Opinion

Coman v. Thomas Manufacturing Co.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided September 20, 1988No. 8822SC218PublishedCited by 7 opinions

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

  1. Hogan v. Forsyth Country Club Co.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1986
  2. Presnell v. PellSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1979
  3. Smith v. Ford Motor Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1976
  4. Sides v. Duke UniversityCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1985
  5. Still v. LanceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1971

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Amos v. Oakdale Knitting Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1992
  2. McLaughlin v. Barclays American Corp.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1989
  3. Amos v. Oakdale Knitting Co.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1991
  4. Amos v. Oakdale Knitting Co.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1991
  5. Coman v. Thomas Manufacturing Co.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1988

2 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