130 N.C. App. 435 - Werner v. Alexander’s Empirical Analysis
1998
Citation profile
15 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently August 2020
15 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on 85 N.C. App. 669 - Harris v. NCNB National Bank of North Carolina · Weinberger v. UOP, Inc. · Rabkin v. Philip A. Hunt Chemical Corp. · 120 N.C. App. 154 - Arroyo v. Scottie's Professional Window Cleaning, Inc. · 73 Md. App. 727 - Walter J. Schloss Associates v. Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co.
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) tests the legal sufficiency of a complaint. Harris v. NCNB, 85 N.C. App. 669, 670 , 355 S.E.2d 838, 840 (1987). This Court has summarized the trial court’s duty in ruling upon such a motion as follows: “In order to withstand [a 12(b)(6) motion], the complaint must provide sufficient notice of the events and circumstances from which the claim arises, and must state allegations sufficient to satisfy the substantive elements of at least some recognized claim. The question for the court is whether, as a matter of law, the allegations of the complaint, treated as true, are sufficient to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under some legal theory, whether properly labeled or not. In general, ‘a complaint should not be dismissed for insufficiency unless it appears to a certainty that plaintiff is entitled to no relief under any state of facts which could be proved in support of the claim. ’ ””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[Although] a statutory appraisal remedy “may not be adequate ... in certain cases, particularly where fraud, misrepresentation, self-dealing, deliberate waste of corporate assets, or gross and palpable overreaching are involved[,]” ... a “remedy beyond the statutory procedure is not available where the shareholder’s objection is essentially a complaint regarding the price which he received for his shares.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.