{
  "id": 8525924,
  "name": "JUDIE R. RUFFIN v. CONTRACTORS & MATERIALS, INC. AND DICKERSON, INC.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Ruffin v. Contractors & Materials, Inc.",
  "decision_date": "1984-06-19",
  "docket_number": "No. 8320SC922",
  "first_page": "174",
  "last_page": "176",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "69 N.C. App. 174"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.",
    "id": 14983,
    "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "254 S.E. 2d 611",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1979,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "615"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "297 N.C. 181",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8568312
      ],
      "year": 1979,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "185"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/297/0181-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "260 S.E. 2d 611",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1979,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "613"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "298 N.C. 715",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8573981
      ],
      "year": 1979,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "719"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/298/0715-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 295,
    "char_count": 4600,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.837,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.20556256368614542
    },
    "sha256": "2612431692d6d8e6f09e13251e9dc038e94061ed483dd5b4396478298da09579",
    "simhash": "1:ba4f2fda06e98df1",
    "word_count": 747
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:17:04.613219+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Chief Judge VAUGHN and Judge WELLS concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "JUDIE R. RUFFIN v. CONTRACTORS & MATERIALS, INC. AND DICKERSON, INC."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "HEDRICK, Judge.\nIn her brief plaintiff concedes that her claim against defendant Contractors & Materials, Inc., was properly dismissed. Thus, the trial court\u2019s order dismissing plaintiffs claim against defendant Contractors will be affirmed. We are thus concerned only with the propriety of the court\u2019s actions in regard to defendant Dickerson, Inc.\nThe rules governing dismissal of a claim under N.C. Gen. Stat. Sec. 1A-1, Rule 12(b)(6), North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure, are well-settled. \u201cA claim for relief should not suffer dismissal unless it affirmatively appears that plaintiff is entitled to no relief under any state of facts which could be presented in support of the claim.\u201d Presnell v. Pell, 298 N.C. 715, 719, 260 S.E. 2d 611, 613 (1979). In ruling on a motion under Rule 12(b)(6), \u201cthe complaint must be viewed as admitted, and on that basis the court must determine as a matter of law whether the allegations state a claim for which relief may be granted.\u201d Stanback v. Stanback, 297 N.C. 181, 185, 254 S.E. 2d 611, 615 (1979). Similarly, summary judgment is proper only when \u201cthe pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that any party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.\u201d N.C. Gen. Stat. Sec. 1A-1, Rule 56(c), North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure.\nIn her complaint plaintiff alleged that her real and personal property had been damaged by the defendant\u2019s negligent and unlawful operation of a rock quarry on property adjacent to that of the plaintiff. Plaintiff has clearly alleged a claim for relief against the defendant, and she has not pleaded an insurmountable bar to her right to recover. As the movant for summary judgment, defendant Dickerson, Inc., has failed to offer by affidavit, exhibit, or otherwise any evidence disclosing that there are no genuine issues of material fact and that it is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law.\nThe \u201corder and judgment\u201d dismissing plaintiffs claim against Dickerson, Inc., will be reversed and the cause will be remanded to the Superior Court for further proceedings.\nAffirmed in part, reversed and remanded in part.\nChief Judge VAUGHN and Judge WELLS concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "HEDRICK, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Sharpe & Buckner, by Richard G. Buckner, for plaintiff, appellant.",
      "Dawkins, Glass & Lee, P.A., by Koy E. Dawkins, for defendant, appellee, Dickerson, Inc."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "JUDIE R. RUFFIN v. CONTRACTORS & MATERIALS, INC. AND DICKERSON, INC.\nNo. 8320SC922\n(Filed 19 June 1984)\nNegligence \u00a7 22\u2014 damages from operation of quarry \u2014 sufficiency of complaint\nPlaintiffs complaint stated a claim for relief against defendant for damages to her real and personal property allegedly caused by defendant\u2019s negligent and unlawful operation of a rock quarry on property adjacent to that of plaintiff, and defendant failed to show that it was entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law.\nAppeal by plaintiff from Seay, Judge. Order entered 22 June 1983 in Superior Court, RICHMOND County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 4 June 1984.\nThis is a civil action wherein plaintiff seeks to recover $50,-000 for injury to real and personal property allegedly caused by defendants\u2019 operation of a rock quarry on land adjacent to that owned by plaintiff. By complaint filed 1 April 1983 plaintiff alleged that defendants should be held strictly liable for injury caused by their conduct in carrying on an \u201cultrahazardous activity,\u201d that their conduct constitutes an unlawful trespass and a nuisance, that defendants have behaved in a negligent fashion, and that defendants have violated \u201cvarious federal and state laws and regulations governing blasting and related activities.\u201d Before filing answer the defendants filed a \u201cmotion to dismiss\u201d supported by an affidavit of Koy E. Dawkins, counsel for defendants, which contained the following information:\nOn the 16th day of August, 1979, under my supervision, our firm prepared a deed from Dickerson, Inc. to Dickerson Realty Corporation for that real property which makes up the Rockingham, North Carolina quarry alleged to be adjacent to the lands of the Plaintiff.\nA copy of that deed as recorded in Book 620, at Page 84 thru 86, in the office of the Register of Deeds of Richmond County is attached.\nThe defendants likewise filed a copy of the deed referred to in the affidavit. On 22 June 1983 Judge Seay allowed defendants\u2019 motion and entered an \u201corder and judgment\u201d wherein he dismissed plaintiffs complaint and entered summary judgment for defendant, Dickerson, Inc. Plaintiff appealed.\nSharpe & Buckner, by Richard G. Buckner, for plaintiff, appellant.\nDawkins, Glass & Lee, P.A., by Koy E. Dawkins, for defendant, appellee, Dickerson, Inc."
  },
  "file_name": "0174-01",
  "first_page_order": 202,
  "last_page_order": 204
}
