By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: February 25,2013
Gerringer v. Pfaff The plaintiff-client’s breach of fiduciary duty claim was essentially a professional malpractice claim; therefore, the trial court appropriately applied the three-year statute of limitation and four-year statute of repose. Since
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: January 31,2013
In re Raprager After an ex-husband was incarcerated on contempt charges for failing to make payments required by a domestic relations consent order, he filed a bankruptcy petition.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: January 31,2013
Priest v. Coch The plaintiff-law firm has stated a claim for breach of the parties’ contingency fee contract.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: January 28,2013
Dickson v. Rucho G.S. § 120-133 does not mention the attorney-client privilege; therefore a clear and unambiguous waiver is absent, meaning the common law right to assert the privilege prevails.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: November 2,2012
In re Marotta When a law firm advances the costs of filing a bankruptcy petition to its client, the firm makes a prepetition loan to its client, resulting in an unsecured claim. The firm may not recover such claims as administrative expenses.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: October 18,2012
State v. Okwara In the underlying rape case, defense counsel (defendant herein) obviously knew the Rape Shield Statute required her to seek an in camera hearing before she could cross-examine the complaining witness about her sex life, since defense counsel had sought and obtained such a ruling about the witness’ past sexual relationship with the accused.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: October 16,2012
Bass v. Hoskins Plaintiffs contend the defendant-attorney should have discovered trustees’ wrongdoing when the attorney reviewed and revised trust documents for plaintiffs’ decedent in 2006.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: October 16,2012
Atkinson v. Lackey Plaintiff Scott consulted with James, McElroy & Diehl attorney Edward Hinson about a dispute that – under representation by a different lawyer – became the basis for a lawsuit (the first lawsuit); nevertheless, James, McElroy & Diehl may represent the defendants in a second lawsuit brought by plaintiff Scott.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: September 11,2012
Cullen v. Emanuel & Dunn, PLLC Plaintiffs lost a prior lawsuit and are now suing the lawyers who represented the winning side. Plaintiffs have not shown that an attorney’s acceptance of a retainer to represent a defendant in a fraud action, without more, is enough to make the attorney liable under North Carolina's Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: September 10,2012
Cullen v. Emanuel & Dunn, PLLC Plaintiffs lost a prior lawsuit and are now suing the lawyers who represented the winning side. Plaintiffs have not shown that an attorney’s acceptance of a retainer to represent a defendant in a fraud action, without more, is enough to make the attorney liable under North Carolina's Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
NC Lawyers Weekly keeps you connected with the latest legal news, Daily Practice and Breaking
News alerts.
Sign up for NC Lawyers Weekly email alerts
State v. Ingram though one of the eyewitnesses was only 10 years old at the time of the shooting, the credibility of the witness’s identification of defendant was a question for the jury.
State v. Cathcart Even though defendant’s failure to provide a second adequate breath sample caused the Intoximeter to time out, requiring the arresting officer to reset it to obtain another breath sample, defendant provided two breath samples within 11 minutes, registering alcohol concentrations of .10 and .09. These test results were admissible.
Dooley v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. Although an auto liability policy failed to specify any specific amount of uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage provided, that omission did not mean the policy terms prohibiting “stacking,” or combining coverage for multiple insured vehicles, were ambiguous under Virginia law and would allow stacking. The 4th Circuit affirms the district court’s denial of additional coverage to appellant
