Warren v. Halifax County

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Warren v. Halifax County

368 S.E.2d 47, 90 N.C. App. 271, 1988 N.C. App. LEXIS 437

CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina

DecidedMay 17, 1988

Docket876SC1035

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 368 S.E.2d 47 (Warren v. Halifax County) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Warren v. Halifax County, 368 S.E.2d 47, 90 N.C. App. 271, 1988 N.C. App. LEXIS 437 (N.C. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

HEDRICK, Chief Judge.

The one question presented on this appeal is whether the trial court erred by dismissing the action for failure to state a claim for which relief could be granted pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). In ruling on a motion pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) the allegations of the complaint must be viewed as admitted, and on that basis the court must determine as a matter of law whether the allegations *273 state a claim for which relief can be granted. Stanback v. Stanback, 297 N.C. 181, 254 S.E. 2d 611 (1979). Generally, a complaint should not be dismissed for insufficiency unless it appears, to a certainty that the plaintiff is entitled to no relief under any state of facts which could be proved in support of the claim. Id.

The allegations in the present case that defendant Halifax County has appropriated to its own use a portion of plaintiffs property are sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss a claim for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). The theory of a claim is to be determined from the evidence and not from the pleadings. Defendant Halifax County, in the present case, has suggested that plaintiffs claim, if any, is in the nature of a claim for “inverse condemnation.” The fact that plaintiff might have mislabeled his claim as one for damages for trespass, one to quiet title, or one for injunctive relief, is of no significance in ruling on the motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). Plaintiff has not alleged an insurmountable bar to a claim for relief for inverse condemnation. Thus, the trial court erred in dismissing his “complaint,” and the order will be reversed and the cause remanded to the superior court for further proceedings.

Reversed and remanded.

Judges Wells and Cozort concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

HEDRICK, Chief Judge.

The one question presented on this appeal is whether the trial court erred by dismissing the action for failure to state a claim for which relief could be granted pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). In ruling on a motion pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) the allegations of the complaint must be viewed as admitted, and on that basis the court must determine as a matter of law whether the allegations *273 state a claim for which relief can be granted. Stanback v. Stanback, 297 N.C. 181, 254 S.E. 2d 611 (1979). Generally, a complaint should not be dismissed for insufficiency unless it appears, to a certainty that the plaintiff is entitled to no relief under any state of facts which could be proved in support of the claim. Id.

The allegations in the present case that defendant Halifax County has appropriated to its own use a portion of plaintiffs property are sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss a claim for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). The theory of a claim is to be determined from the evidence and not from the pleadings. Defendant Halifax County, in the present case, has suggested that plaintiffs claim, if any, is in the nature of a claim for “inverse condemnation.” The fact that plaintiff might have mislabeled his claim as one for damages for trespass, one to quiet title, or one for injunctive relief, is of no significance in ruling on the motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). Plaintiff has not alleged an insurmountable bar to a claim for relief for inverse condemnation. Thus, the trial court erred in dismissing his “complaint,” and the order will be reversed and the cause remanded to the superior court for further proceedings.

Reversed and remanded.

Judges Wells and Cozort concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

368 S.E.2d 47, 90 N.C. App. 271, 1988 N.C. App. LEXIS 437, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/warren-v-halifax-county-ncctapp-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack