27 N.C. App. 65 - Gallimore v. Sink’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

9 federal appellate · 35 state decisions

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 52 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “an unauthorized assumption and exercise of the right of ownership over goods or personal chattels belonging to another, to the alteration of their condition or the exclusion of an owner's rights.”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 73 N.C. App. 438 - Drummond v. Cordell · 76 N.C. App. 127 - White Ex Rel. Brown v. White

2. “In North Carolina a complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief. A complaint may be dismissed on motion if clearly without any merit; and this want of merit may consist in an absence of law to support a claim, or in the disclosure of some fact which will necessarily defeat the claim. But 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. Pleadings are to be liberally construed. Mere vagueness or lack of detail is not ground for a motion to dismiss, but should be attacked by a motion for a more definite statement. Sutton v. Duke, 277 N.C. 94, 102-103 , 176 S.E.2d 161, 166-67 (1970); Caldwell v. Deese, 26 N.C. App. 435 , 216 S.E.2d 452 (1975).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 120 N.C. App. 493 - Ingram v. Kerr

3. ““The essence of conversion is not the acquisition of property by the wrongdoer, but a wrongful deprivation of it to the owner . . . and in consequence it is of no importance what subsequent application was made of the converted property, or that defendant derived no benefit from the act.” 89 C.J.S. Trover and Conversion § 3, pp. 533-34. “[T]he general rule is that there is no conversion until some act is done which is a denial or violation of the plaintiffs dominion over or rights in the property.” 18 Am. Jur. 2d, Conversion, § 1, p. 158. It is clear then that two essential elements are necessary in a complaint for conversion — there must be ownership in the plaintiff and a wrongful conversion by defendant. Wall v. Colvard, Inc., [ 268 N.C. 43 , 149 S.E.2d 559 (1966)]; Vinson v. Knight, 137 N.C. 408 , 49 S.E. 891 (1905).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 145 N.C. App. 525 - Lake Mary Ltd. Partnership v. Johnston