By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: April 24,2013
Taidoc Technology Corp. v. Diagnostic Devices, Inc. The parties’ settlement agreement in their previous contract/tort action contained a release that was broad enough to encompass any pre-settlement patent infringement claims.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: April 17,2013
Samost v. Duke University Even if the “Bulletin of Duke University, The Duke Community Standard in Practice: A Guide for Undergraduates” was a contract between Duke and its students, plaintiffs cannot show that Duke breached the Bulletin’s terms because plaintiffs filed suit instead of allowing the disciplinary process to continue to completion.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: April 10,2013
Lonesource, Inc. v. United Stationers Supply Co. : A letter from the defendant-wholesaler to the plaintiff-reseller said that, if at any point plaintiff had failed to comply with the parties’ agreement, the obligations under the contract would have automatically terminated; nonetheless, the letter was not an anticipatory breach of the contract.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: April 4,2013
Muriithi v. Shuttle Express Inc. An arbitration clause in a franchise agreement signed by a driver for an airport shuttle service is not unconscionable because it includes a class action waiver and a requirement to split arbitration fees, and the 4th Circuit vacates the district court decision and remands the case for entry of an order compelling arbitration.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: March 29,2013
Anderson v. FMC Corp. Without a case precisely on point, the court declines to rule that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the defendant-employer’s claim that, in this action under the Retaliatory Discrimination Act, plaintiff has breached the agreement that settled his workers’ compensation claim.
By North Carolina Staff Reporter
Published: March 28,2013
United States ex rel. Farm Service Agency v. Harvey Fertilizer & Gas Co. Plaintiff’s earlier security interest in a partnership’s farm equipment has priority over defendant’s later security agreement with a partner, especially since most of the equipment that defendant auctioned off can be matched to plaintiff’s list of collateral and the auction receipt identified the partnership as the seller.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: March 27,2013
Glynn v. EDO Corp., Impact Science & Technology An engineer for a government contractor that produces explosive devices does not qualify for protection under the False Claims Act’s anti-retaliation provision for his termination after he reported alleged fraudulent conduct to the government, as his allegations about quality control did not affect the government customer’s acceptance of the product; the 4th Circuit upholds summary judgment for defendant contractor.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: March 27,2013
U.S. ex rel. Benjamin Carter v. Halliburton Co. A former employee of a government contractor that provided military logistical support in Iraq has a claim under the False Claims Act based on allegations that the contractor submitted fraudulent claims for payment for water purification services; the 4th Circuit says the FCA’s statute of limitations is tolled by the Wartime Suspension of Limitations Act even though the U.S. is not a plaintiff.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: March 27,2013
Godon Construction, Inc. v. Primo Enterprises, LLC The plaintiff-contractor seeks payment for work done pursuant to oral modifications of the parties’ remodeling contract
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: March 20,2013
Hardison v. Kia Motors America, Inc Even though defendant did not act within the time prescribed by North Carolina’s Lemon Law, defendant acted reasonably and repaired plaintiffs’ car; therefore, plaintiffs are not entitled to attorney’s fees or treble damages under the Lemon Law.
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
Applewood Properties, LLC v. New South Properties, LLC Because the county Natural Resources Department never found the defendant-contractor to be in violation of any law, rule, order or erosion and sedimentation and control plan, plaintiff did not have standing to bring a civil action under the Sedimentation Pollution Control Act to seek redress for its injuries.
North Carolina Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co. v. Cully’s Motorcross Park, Inc. Even though defendant Volpe would probably never have been charged with obtaining property by false pretenses if the plaintiff-insurance company’s investigator had not told a police sergeant the results of his investigation, we reject this “but for” standard as the method for proving the initiation element of malicious prosecution.
Bridges v. Parrish We reject plaintiff’s claim that defendants are liable for failing to secure their gun, thereby allowing their 52-year-old son to gain access to the gun and shoot plaintiff with it.
