By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: May 2,2012
Waste Industries USA v. State New landfill legislation affected in-state and out-of-state waste equally and was rationally related to public health and other benefits. It did not violate the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: April 26,2012
Vuncannon v. North Carolina Institute of Christian Development, Inc. Plaintiffs’ standing to bring this action (relating to the defendant-church’s sale of real property) depends on plaintiffs’ membership in the church. Defendants deny that plaintiffs are members of the church and provided the trial court with a document showing that plaintiffs had terminated their membership prior to the filing of this lawsuit by violating membership requirements established in the church’s bylaws. The trial court correctly held that it lacked jurisdiction to determine whether plaintiffs are members of the church.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: March 20,2012
Edwards v. Morrow We read G.S. § 130A-496 to exempt private, nonprofit country clubs from the general prohibition on smoking in restaurants and bars; however, private, for-profit country clubs are not exempt from the ban. Given the General Assembly’s motive for enacting the ban – protection of the public from secondhand smoke – this is a rational, and therefore constitutional, distinction.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: March 15,2012
Professional Solutions Financial Services v. Richard Yeager & Associates, D.D.S., P.A. Where plaintiff obtained a default judgment against defendants in Iowa and sought to enforce it here, our trial court was required to give full faith and credit to the Iowa judgment unless the judgment violated the public policy of Iowa, not the public policy of North Carolina.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: March 7,2012
Sandhill Amusements v. State ex rel. Purdue The trial court determined that G.S. § 14-3-6.4 was constitutional, dismissed plaintiffs’ complaint for a declaration that their sweepstakes systems did not violate N.C. gaming or gambling laws, and dissolved a preliminary injunction prohibiting defendants from taking enforcement action against plaintiffs. Since Hest Technologies, Inc. v. State ex rel. Purdue [Lawyers Weekly No. 12-07-0254] declared § 14-306.4 void as unconstitutionally overbroad, we must reverse the trial court’s order.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: March 6,2012
Hest Technologies, Inc. v. State ex rel. Purdue G.S. § 14-306.4 does not outlaw sweepstakes, but it prohibits the sweepstakes company from revealing results via a videogame. The statute violates the sweepstakes company’s freedom of speech.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: February 2,2012
Monitech Inc. v. Robertson Since plaintiff - a longtime vendor of breath alcohol ignition interlock devices — has no property interest in the N.C. DMV’s 2008 guidelines for certification and request for certification (the 2008 RFC), plaintiff lacks standing to challenge DMV’s termination of the 2008 RFC.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: January 13,2012
American Petroleum Institute v. Cooper North Carolina’s Ethanol Blending Statute – which allows gasoline marketers in our state to participate in the blending of ethanol and gasoline (and the tax credits that go along with such blending) – does not conflict with and is not preempted by the Federal Renewable Fuel Program, the Lanham Act, or the Petroleum Marketing Practices Act, nor does the Ethanol Blending Statute violate the Commerce Clause. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is granted.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: January 12,2012
Northrup v. Albert Where defendant Deputy Goudelock had the impression that plaintiff was speeding, this was sufficient to warrant the deputy’s initial stop of plaintiff. In addition, Deputy Goudelock began to follow plaintiff (and only observed the alleged speeding) following what he believed to be plaintiff leaving the scene of an accident in which plaintiff was involved.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: January 11,2012
Stuart v. Huff G.S. § 90-21.85 requires a medical provider to display images of an abortion patient’s ultrasound so she may see them and to simultaneously explain the display, including the presence, location, and dimensions of the fetus along with the presence of external members and internal organs, if present and viewable. This compelled speech does not withstand strict scrutiny.
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
Front Street Construction, LLC v. Colonial Bank, N.A. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. (FDIC), as receiver for failed bank Colonial Bank, N.A., entered into a purchase and assumption agreement (PAA) with Branch Banking and Trust Co. Some of plaintiffs’ claims against BB&T arose from acts or omissions by Colonial and were not addressed in the PAA. As to those claims, plaintiffs must exhaust their administrative remedies under the Financial Institutional Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act (FIRREA) before they can seek judicial remedies.
State v. Squires When a state trooper saw a pickup truck on the side of the road after midnight and stopped to see if any assistance was needed, he was not required to leave after a person outside the truck told him everything was okay. The trooper did not impermissibly extend the stop when he checked on the driver of the vehicle.
State v. Rouse Even though, in his opening and closing statements, defense counsel referred to the arresting officers as “very good officers,” counsel did so in the context of arguing that everyone makes mistakes. Counsel could have reasonably made a tactical decision to refrain from challenging the officers’ general professionalism and competence, while still encouraging the jury to find that the officers arrested defendant on May 23, 2010 as a result of their inadvertent mistakes.
Robinson v. North Carolina Department of Correction Where plaintiff testified that, all the way around his wrist, there were “teeth marks” from too-tight handcuffs and that his wrist was bruised and swollen, but where a drawing plaintiff made to document his injuries indicated that only his left finger and thumb were swollen with no indication of bruising, discoloration, a cut or “teeth marks” laterally around his wrist, the evidence supports the Industrial Commission’s finding that plaintiff’s drawing was inconsistent with his testimony regarding his injuries.
