Trusts & Estates – Civil Practice – Venue – Tort/Negligence – Medical Malpractice

Trusts & Estates – Civil Practice – Venue – Tort/Negligence – Medical Malpractice (access required)

Estate of Davis v. Groff As administrator of the decedent’s estate, plaintiff was entitled to bring suit in the county where he resides. This rule of law, which was set down by our Supreme Court in Trust Co. v. Finch, 232 N.C. 485, 61 S.E.2d 377 (1950), was not and could not be changed by this court’s holding in Roberts v. Adventure Holdings, LLC, 703 S.E.2d 784 (2010), disc. review denied, 365 N.C. 187, 707 S.E.2d 241 (2011). Furthermore, although Roberts held that a guardian ad litem’s residence was insufficient to justify venue, the court also explained that the law regarding administrators and other fiduciaries did not apply to GALs.

Login required


You have clicked on a link to information that is exclusive to NC Lawyers Weekly subscribers.

	Email Address: Password:	Already a paid subscriber but not registered for online access yet? For instructions on how to get premium web access, click here. Forgot Password?

Interested in Subscribing?

Start by choosing how you'd like your news delivered.

- Print and Digital -

- Digital Only -

Try North Carolina Lawyers Weekly for a month
for only $39 AND get a free whitepaper:

Exit strategy: a solo and
small-firm lawyer's guide to
the how and when of retirement

Click here to subscribe now.

POST A COMMENT

Comments are closed.

Most Important Opinions

Tort/Negligence – STCA – Schools & School Boards – Bus/Van Collision – Right of Way – Bus Driver’s Lookout (access required)

Bartlett v. Wayne County Board of Education Plaintiffs contend that the majority of eyewitnesses in this case testified that the responding officer’s diagram depicting the accident scene was accurate, that the diagram demonstrates plaintiffs’ “van had to have been almost directly in front of the bus at the time [the bus driver] started her turn,” and that this evidence conclusively established that the bus driver failed to yield the right-of-way to plaintiffs’ van.

Taxation – State Income — U.S. Treasury Bonds – Market Discount Income – First Impression — Interest (access required)

Fidelity Bank v. North Carolina Department of Revenue Even though the N.C. Revenue Act uses the Internal Revenue Code to determine state net income, and even though the Code treats “market discount income” on U.S. Treasury bonds as interest for purposes of the Code, under the N.C. Revenue Act market discount income on U.S. Treasury bonds is treated as income rather than interest.

Contract – Forum Selection Clause – Arbitration – Labor & Employment (access required)

Apex Tool Group, LLC v. Ingersoll-Rand Co. Neither plaintiff nor the individual defendants are Texas residents; nevertheless, each of the individual defendants’ employment agreements includes an unambiguous and mandatory forum selection clause, which says any lawsuit involving the agreement must be brought in Harris County, Texas. The employment agreements were entered into by plaintiff’s predecessor and the individual defendants, who apparently did not live in Texas when they entered into the contracts and thus apparently anticipated interstate travel in the event of a trial.