Clements v. Clements Where the parties initiated their domestic litigation in district court before the defendant-mother was ruled incompetent, the district court retains jurisdiction over the issue of child support, despite the fact that, ordinarily, the clerk of superior court has jurisdiction over expenditures from an incompetent’s estate.
Gilbarco Inc. v. Tronitec, Inc. Even though only a small percentage of the Georgia defendant’s sales are in North Carolina, the sum of defendant’s contacts with N.C. and its sale of an allegedly infringing product to an N.C. customer give this court personal jurisdiction over defendant pursuant to a specific jurisdiction analysis.
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Hill Defendant admitted that he bought his 14-year-old child a moped and that the child was operating a moped owned by defendant on a highway without parental supervision. It is undisputed that the moped rear-ended a stopped vehicle that was owned by plaintiff’s insured. These facts support the trial court’s determination that plaintiff’s counsel made a reasonable inquiry into the underlying facts before filing a complaint seeking subrogation for amounts plaintiff had to pay to its insured as a result of the collision.
Danius v. Sun TV Network Ltd. The court does not have general jurisdiction over an Indian television network that contracts with a satellite subscription service and an internet-based IPTV network, which in turn provide subscription services in the U.S.
In re Richardson The district court ordered a split commitment, requiring respondent to receive both inpatient and outpatient care. As such, it was appropriate for the court to conclude that respondent was dangerous to himself and others, as well as capable of surviving safely in the community with available supervision.
Manuel v. Gembala Plaintiffs have filed similar actions against defendant in both federal and state court, alleging a “mortgage modification” scam. The federal suit was filed first. On defendant’s motion to stay the state court action, the trial court considered plaintiffs’ access to the federal court to hear their state law claims, the nature of the case, the choice of forum by plaintiffs, and the practical consideration of judicial economy. These factors support the trial court’s decision to grant defendant’s motion to stay.
Robinson v. Smith Defendants had not filed a responsive pleading when plaintiffs filed their amended complaint; therefore, N.C. R. Civ. P. 20 (permissive joinder) and 21 (misjoinder and nonjoinder) do not apply, despite the fact that the amended complaint named additional defendants.
Hindman v. Appalachian State University Where the Feb. 10, 2011 complaint sought only a declaratory judgment that defendants had breached the plaintiff-professors’ contracts by reducing their salaries by 0.5 percent for the 2008-09 academic year, defendants were entitled to summary judgment on mootness grounds.
New Hanover County Child Support Enforcement ex rel. Beatty v. Greenfield Where the process server’s affidavit showed that he was authorized to serve process in Virginia and that he left copies of the summons and complaint with defendant himself, service of process was sufficient.
Shoaf v. Shoaf Plaintiffs’ will caveat proceeding presents the issues of the testatrix’s testamentary capacity and undue influence while this tort action presents the issues of whether defendant converted the testatrix’s property and breached his fiduciary duty to her while she was alive. The caveat proceeding seeks to have the testatrix’s will set aside, while this action seeks damages and a constructive trust. Even though the two proceedings involve the same parties, they do not present the same legal issues or demand the same relief; therefore, the prior pending action doctrine does not apply.
