Most Important Opinions

1. Real Property – Eminent Domain – Sufficient Notice – Beach Nourishment – Civil Practice – Preliminary Injunction — Municipal 

   Fisher v. Town of Nags Head Plaintiffs, owners of oceanfront properties, sought to preliminarily enjoin a beach nourishment project because the defendant-town did not intend to pay plaintiffs for the easement that the town would need to add sand (and value) to plaintiffs’ properties. The issue of just compensation is one for the condemnation proceeding and not for preliminary injunction. The other issue raised by plaintiffs – that the town’s notice was inadequate – is rejected in part because the notice was sufficient to allow plaintiffs to file suit before the deadline set out in the notice.

2. Tort/Negligence – Fraud – Misrepresentations – Real Property — Mortgages & Guaranties – Foreclosure – Sale Price 

   BOGNC, LLC v. Cornelius NC Self-Storage LLC Only one of the third-party defendants is alleged to have presented falsified records to a foreclosure-sale bidder in order to convince the bidder not to file another upset bid. Since the third-party complaint does not allege any false representations by the other third-party defendants, the fraud claim against those other third-party defendants is dismissed.

3. Civil Practice – Discovery Violation – Damages Evidence – Exclusion 

   Silicon Knights, Inc. v. Epic Games, Inc. In its written discovery responses, plaintiff promised expert evidence to prove its damages, and plaintiff provided a report from its designated expert. However, on Dec. 22, 2011, the court found the expert’s methodology unreliable and excluded his reports and proposed testimony. Because plaintiff has failed to supplement its discovery responses and trial is set for May 14, plaintiff will not be allowed to present evidence of its damages.

4. Tort/Negligence – Contributory Negligence Defense – Labor & Employment – Contractors – Masons – Temporary Elevator 

   Martinez v. Otis Elevator Co. Where plaintiff has forecast evidence that he was following his supervisor’s instructions and the same procedure the masons had been using for several days – working on the elevator shaft while a temporary lift was on the floor above them – with the understanding the lift would not be moved while they were working without prior approval of the masons, the court cannot find as a matter of law that plaintiff was contributorily negligent by working in the elevator shaft below the temporary lift. To the extent that defendant contends plaintiff was negligent by failing to keep a “lookout”, there is conflicting testimony regarding whether any safety light flashed or alarm sounded prior to the lift moving.