State v. Rhodes At defendant’s drug possession trial, his father testified that the drugs did not belong to defendant, but he refused to say whether the drugs were his own. The father’s out-of-court statement that the drugs belonged to him was not newly discovered evidence within the meaning of G.S. § 15A-1415
Trantham v. Martin Where plaintiffs presented evidence that (1) defendant Martin was an experienced real estate broker, (2) plaintiffs had limited education, (3) Martin fostered a personal relationship with plaintiffs, (4) Martin handled the paperwork when he bought plaintiffs’ farm in an owner-financed transaction, (5) plaintiffs trusted Martin and thought of him as a friend, and (6) Martin sent plaintiffs a letter saying, “I continue to appreciate very much the confidence that you have always placed in me,” there was enough evidence of a confidential relationship to submit the issue to the jury.
Hackos v. Goodman, Allen & Filetti, PLLC The only “act or omission” which occurred during the statute of limitations period was defendants’ failure petition the N.C. Supreme Court for review of this court’s rulings against plaintiff in her previous legal malpractice action. Since plaintiff fails to allege any contractual obligation requiring defendants to represent her beyond appeal to this court, defendants’ failure to file the petition did not constitute the last “act or omission” giving rise to plaintiff’s legal malpractice claim in the instant case.
Callanan v. Walsh In their divorce/equitable distribution case, the parties invoked the district court’s jurisdiction to decide matters related to their premarital agreement. Therefore, the superior court lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate plaintiff’s claim that defendant breached the premarital agreement.
Hedgepeth v. Lexington State Bank Since the deed of trust in question purported to secure, not only the $117,600 loan that was made contemporaneously with it, but also the outstanding debts of plaintiffs’ business, the deed of trust remained in effect even after the $117,600 debt was satisfied
Wilhite v. Pike Electric, Inc. Although plaintiff’s doctor agreed with plaintiff’s counsel’s assertion that plaintiff was “100 percent” disabled, the doctor’s opinion on this point was not based solely upon plaintiff’s medical condition – which the doctor said was unchanged – or on the doctor’s medical expertise; rather, the doctor agreed with counsel’s assessment based on the doctor’s consideration of plaintiff’s “skill set and educational background.”
Huff v. CBS Quality Cars, Inc. Since the trial court found that plaintiff signed the bill of sale and ratified the financing contract by accepting the car, driving it, and making payments on it for several months, the court was not required to make a finding of fact regarding whether plaintiff’s signature on the financing contract had been forged.
U.S. v. Hasan The sale of untaxed cigarettes by government agents during a two-year investigation of trafficking in contraband cigarettes was not so “outrageous” and “shocking” as to violate defendant’s right to due process, and the 4th Circuit affirms his convictions under 18 U.S.C. § 371 and § 2342(a).
ABB Inc. v. CSX Transportation Inc. Rail carrier CSX Transportation Inc. is liable for the full $550,000 in damage to a $1.3 million electrical transformer shipped from St. Louis to Pittsburgh, and the district court erred in holding that the parties had limited CSX’s potential liability in the bill of lading to $25,000; the 4th Circuit says the parties did not modify the carrier’s liability exposure, as permitted by the Carmack Amendment to the Interstate Commerce Act, and vacates the judgment limiting CSX’s liability to $25,000.
American Petroleum Institute v. Cooper Plaintiff trade groups that represent the natural gas and oil industry who want to enjoin enforcement of North Carolina’s Ethanol Blending Statute get another chance to prove Lanham Act preemption; the 4th Circuit agrees with the district court’s grant of summary judgment for defendants, the state and a marketing association, on plaintiffs’ preemption challenges under the Petroleum Marketing Practices Act and federal renewable fuel program, but says there are unresolved issues on plaintiffs’ Lanham Act preemption challenge.