{
  "id": 8552935,
  "name": "WALTER G. GREEN v. WILLIAM R. BEST",
  "name_abbreviation": "Green v. Best",
  "decision_date": "1970-10-21",
  "docket_number": "No. 7015SC597",
  "first_page": "599",
  "last_page": "600",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "9 N.C. App. 599"
    }
  ],
  "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": "176 S.E. 2d 161",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1970,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "277 N.C. 94",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8561932
      ],
      "year": 1970,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/277/0094-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 169,
    "char_count": 2447,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.525,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.0997720922370314e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5678246106240171
    },
    "sha256": "d763ed54d37c8d5488210303c549f9e0763ef1ef6a8a5e69cbfbf0dcdef2c510",
    "simhash": "1:a9acddb13c4db0cb",
    "word_count": 432
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:50:15.842675+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Campbell and Vaughn concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "WALTER G. GREEN v. WILLIAM R. BEST"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "BRITT, Judge.\nPlaintiff contends that because of Rule 4(a) of the Rules of Practice in the Court of Appeals, an appeal by defendant from the order denying his motion to dismiss plaintiff\u2019s action for that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted is not proper. We agree with the contention.\nAlthough defendant does not state in his motion to dismiss the rule of Civil Procedure under which he moves, presumably it is Rule 12(b) (6). In the recent case of Sutton v. Duke, et als, 277 N.C. 94, 176 S.E. 2d 161 (filed 28 August 1970), opinion by Sharp, Justice, we find:\n\u201cA motion to dismiss \u2018for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted\u2019 is the modern equivalent of a demurrer, (citations) ***** Accordingly, we treat the demurrer in this case as a motion to dismiss under our Rule 12(b) (6) and consider whether plaintiff has stated in his complaint \u2018a claim upon which relief can be granted\u2019.\u201d\nIn like manner we feel that until Rule 4 of the Rules of Practice in the Court of Appeals is rewritten to conform with the Rules of Civil Procedure, we should treat a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) as a demurrer and not entertain an appeal from an order denying the motion, subject to the right of the movant to petition for certiorari as envisioned by said Rule 4.\nFor the reasons stated, the appeal is dismissed.\nAppeal dismissed.\nJudges Campbell and Vaughn concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "BRITT, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Wilkinson and Vosburgh by John A. Wilkinson for plaintiff appellee.",
      "Latham, Pickard and Ennis by James F. Latham for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "WALTER G. GREEN v. WILLIAM R. BEST\nNo. 7015SC597\n(Filed 21 October 1970)\nRules of Civil Procedure \u00a7 12; Appeal and Error \u00a7 6\u2014 orders appealable \u2014 denial of motion to dismiss complaint\nThe Court of Appeals will not entertain an appeal from an order denying defendant\u2019s motion to dismiss plaintiff\u2019s complaint for failure of the complaint to state a cause of action upon which relief can be granted; the defendant\u2019s remedy is to petition for writ of certiorari. G.S. 1A-1, Rule 12(b) (6); Court of Appeals Rule No. 4(a).\nAppeal by defendant from Braswell, /., May 1970 Session, Alamance Superior Court.\nThis is an action for slander commenced by issuance of summons and filing of complaint on 11 July 1969. An amended complaint was filed and on 8 April 1970, defendant filed a motion to dismiss the action. From an order denying his motion to dismiss, defendant attempts to appeal to this court.\nWilkinson and Vosburgh by John A. Wilkinson for plaintiff appellee.\nLatham, Pickard and Ennis by James F. Latham for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0599-01",
  "first_page_order": 623,
  "last_page_order": 624
}