<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>North Carolina Lawyers Weekly &#187; Commercial</title>
	<atom:link href="http://nclawyersweekly.com/category/opinion-digest/commercial/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://nclawyersweekly.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 21 May 2013 20:46:13 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Commercial &#8211; Contract &#8211; N.C. Wine Distribution Agreements Act&#160;</title>
		<link>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2010/10/26/commercial-contract-nc-wine-distribution-agreements-act/</link>
		<comments>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2010/10/26/commercial-contract-nc-wine-distribution-agreements-act/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 26 Oct 2010 19:14:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Courts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. D.C. Eastern]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Contract]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[N.C. Wine Distribution Agreements Act]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nclawyersweekly.com/?p=52464</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Country Vintner of North Carolina v. E. &#38; J. Gallo Winery, Inc. (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-02-1031, 13 pp.) (W. Earl Britt, J.) U.S.E.D. The District Court denied plaintiff&#8217;s motion for summary judgment and granted defendant&#8217;s motion for summary judgment because there was no prima facie evidence showing that the plaintiff had a wholesaler&#8217;s distribution [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2010/10/26/commercial-contract-nc-wine-distribution-agreements-act/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Intellectual Property &#8211; Trademark Infringement &#8211; Paper Towel Dispenser&#160;</title>
		<link>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2010/08/13/intellectual-property-trademark-infringement-paper-towel-dispenser/</link>
		<comments>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2010/08/13/intellectual-property-trademark-infringement-paper-towel-dispenser/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 13 Aug 2010 21:10:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[4th Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Commercial]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Courts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Intellectual Property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Trademark Infringement]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nclawyersweekly.com/?p=51017</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Georgia Pacific Consumer Products LP v. Von Drehle Corp. (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-01-0787, 26 pp.) (Hamilton, J.) No. 09-1942, Aug. 10, 2010; USDC at Raleigh (Boyle, J.) 4th Cir. Holding: In this dispute over defendant von Drehle&#8217;s sale of allegedly inferior paper toweling for use in &#8220;touchless&#8221; paper towel dispensers designed by plaintiff Georgia Pacific [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2010/08/13/intellectual-property-trademark-infringement-paper-towel-dispenser/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Commercial &#8211; Creditor&#8217;s Rights &#8211; Farm Produce &#8211; PACA Trust&#160;</title>
		<link>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2010/03/15/commercial-creditors-rights-farm-produce-paca-trust/</link>
		<comments>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2010/03/15/commercial-creditors-rights-farm-produce-paca-trust/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Mar 2010 06:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>dmc-admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[4th Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Commercial]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digest]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nclawyersweekly.com/2010/03/15/commercial-creditors-rights-farm-produce-paca-trust/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Nickey Gregory Co. LLP v. AgriCap LLC. (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-01-0250, 28 pp.) (Niemeyer, J.) No. 09-1130, March 4, 2010; USDC at Greenville, S.C. (Herlong, J.) 4th Cir. Holding: A seller of farm produce has a trust on sale proceeds under the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act, but the 4th Circuit remands the case for reconsideration [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2010/03/15/commercial-creditors-rights-farm-produce-paca-trust/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Commercial &#8211; Secured Transaction &#8211;Collateral Sale &#8211;Commercially Unreasonable &#8211;Waste Recycler&#160;</title>
		<link>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2009/09/21/commercial-secured-transaction-collateral-sale-commercially-unreasonable-waste-recycler/</link>
		<comments>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2009/09/21/commercial-secured-transaction-collateral-sale-commercially-unreasonable-waste-recycler/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 21 Sep 2009 06:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>dmc-admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[N.C. Court of Appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digest]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nclawyersweekly.com/2009/09/21/commercial-secured-transaction-collateral-sale-commercially-unreasonable-waste-recycler/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Commercial Credit Group, Inc. v. Barber. (Lawyers Weekly No. 09-07-0870, 19 pp.) (Robert N. Hunter Jr., J.) Appealed from Pitt County Superior Court. (W. Russell Duke Jr., J.) N.C. App. Holding: A creditor left a debtor&#8217;s broken recycling machine sitting in a repair shop for weeks, then sold it two days after Christmas after minimal, [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2009/09/21/commercial-secured-transaction-collateral-sale-commercially-unreasonable-waste-recycler/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Commercial &#8211; Credit Card &#8211; Account Stated &#8211; Contract Purchase &#8211; Insufficient Showing&#160;</title>
		<link>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2009/08/03/commercial-credit-card-account-stated-contract-purchase-insufficient-showing/</link>
		<comments>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2009/08/03/commercial-credit-card-account-stated-contract-purchase-insufficient-showing/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 03 Aug 2009 06:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>dmc-admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[N.C. Court of Appeals Unpublished]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digest]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nclawyersweekly.com/2009/08/03/commercial-credit-card-account-stated-contract-purchase-insufficient-showing/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Unifund CCR Partners v. Dover. (Lawyers Weekly No. 09-16-0683, 10 pp.) (James A. Wynn Jr., J.) Appealed from Gaston County District Court. (Richard Abernethy, J.) N.C. App. Unpub. Holding: Plaintiff alleged that it bought defendant&#8217;s credit card account from Chase Bank and that defendant failed to pay the balance due. However, plaintiff did not show [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2009/08/03/commercial-credit-card-account-stated-contract-purchase-insufficient-showing/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Commercial &#8211; Motor Vehicle Transfer &#8211;Total- Loss Vehicle &#8211;No Intent to Defraud&#160;</title>
		<link>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2009/06/15/commercial-motor-vehicle-transfer-total-loss-vehicle-no-intent-to-defraud/</link>
		<comments>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2009/06/15/commercial-motor-vehicle-transfer-total-loss-vehicle-no-intent-to-defraud/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Jun 2009 06:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>dmc-admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[N.C. Court of Appeals Unpublished]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digest]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nclawyersweekly.com/2009/06/15/commercial-motor-vehicle-transfer-total-loss-vehicle-no-intent-to-defraud/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Downey v. Martin. (Lawyers Weekly No. 09-16-0535, 2 pp.) (Linda M. McGee, J.) Appealed from Yancey County District Court. (Kyle D. Austin, J.) N.C. App. Unpub. Holding: The trial court found defendants had no intent to defraud plaintiff when they sold him a car without disclosing that it was a total-loss vehicle; therefore, plaintiff was [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2009/06/15/commercial-motor-vehicle-transfer-total-loss-vehicle-no-intent-to-defraud/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Commercial &#8211; Antitrust &#8211;Pesticide Prices &#8211;Vertical Price Fixing&#160;</title>
		<link>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2009/04/06/commercial-antitrust-pesticide-prices-vertical-price-fixing/</link>
		<comments>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2009/04/06/commercial-antitrust-pesticide-prices-vertical-price-fixing/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 06 Apr 2009 06:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>dmc-admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[4th Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Commercial]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Most Important Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digest]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nclawyersweekly.com/2009/04/06/commercial-antitrust-pesticide-prices-vertical-price-fixing/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Valuepest.com of Charlotte Inc. v. Bayer Corp. (Lawyers Weekly No. 09-01-0288, 21 pp.) (Wilkinson, J.) No. 07-1760, March 24, 2009; USDC at Asheville. (Thornburg, J.) 4th Cir. Holding: Plaintiff retail providers of pest-control services to individual customers cannot recover from defendant manufacturers on a Sherman Act claim that defendants, Bayer and BASF Corp., engaged in [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2009/04/06/commercial-antitrust-pesticide-prices-vertical-price-fixing/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
