<?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; Partnerships</title>
	<atom:link href="http://nclawyersweekly.com/category/opinion-digest/partnerships/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://nclawyersweekly.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 17 May 2013 21:09:12 +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>Partnership &#8211; Tort/Negligence – Use of Partnership Property – Expenses – Deferred Maintenance – Damages – S.C. Law &#8212; Civil Practice – Discovery&#160;</title>
		<link>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/01/29/partnership-tortnegligence-use-of-partnership-property-expenses-deferred-maintenance-damages-s-c-law-civil-practice-discovery/</link>
		<comments>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/01/29/partnership-tortnegligence-use-of-partnership-property-expenses-deferred-maintenance-damages-s-c-law-civil-practice-discovery/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 29 Jan 2013 21:21:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Most Important Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[N.C. Business Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Partnerships]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[disputed]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Properties]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nclawyersweekly.com/?p=70074</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<em>Allen Smith Investment Properties, LLC v. Barbarry Properties, LLC</em> Since defendant Barbarry Properties is a general partner in the parties’ limited partnership, Barbarry has an equal right with the partnership’s other general partners to possess partnership property for partnership purposes. ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/01/29/partnership-tortnegligence-use-of-partnership-property-expenses-deferred-maintenance-damages-s-c-law-civil-practice-discovery/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Partnerships &#8211; Partner’s Withdrawal &#8211; Purchase of Interest &#8211; Valuation &#8211; ‘Inventory’&#160;</title>
		<link>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2012/04/12/partnerships-partner%e2%80%99s-withdrawal-purchase-of-interest-valuation-%e2%80%98inventory%e2%80%99/</link>
		<comments>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2012/04/12/partnerships-partner%e2%80%99s-withdrawal-purchase-of-interest-valuation-%e2%80%98inventory%e2%80%99/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 12 Apr 2012 14:52:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Courts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Most Important Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[N.C. Court of Appeals Unpublished]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Partnerships]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Partner’s Withdrawal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Purchase of Interest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Valuation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[‘Inventory’]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nclawyersweekly.com/?p=61626</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<em>EHP Land Co. v. Bosher</em> When a partner decided to withdraw from the parties’ partnership, the partnership agreement required the partnership to pay the withdrawing partner an amount that was based in part on the partnership’s “inventory”, but the agreement did not define that term. The trial court correctly applied the ordinary meaning of “inventory.”]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2012/04/12/partnerships-partner%e2%80%99s-withdrawal-purchase-of-interest-valuation-%e2%80%98inventory%e2%80%99/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Partnerships &#8211; Partner’s Withdrawal – Purchase of Interest – Valuation – ‘Inventory’&#160;</title>
		<link>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2012/04/10/partnerships-partner%e2%80%99s-withdrawal-%e2%80%93-purchase-of-interest-%e2%80%93-valuation-%e2%80%93-%e2%80%98inventory%e2%80%99/</link>
		<comments>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2012/04/10/partnerships-partner%e2%80%99s-withdrawal-%e2%80%93-purchase-of-interest-%e2%80%93-valuation-%e2%80%93-%e2%80%98inventory%e2%80%99/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 10 Apr 2012 21:18:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Courts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Most Important Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[N.C. Court of Appeals Unpublished]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Partnerships]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Partnerships - Partner’s Withdrawal – Purchase of Interest – Valuation – ‘Inventory’]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nclawyersweekly.com/?p=61572</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<em>EHP Land Co. v. Bosher</em> When a partner decided to withdraw from the parties’ partnership, the partnership agreement required the partnership to pay the withdrawing partner an amount that was based in part on the partnership’s “inventory”, but the agreement did not define that term. The trial court correctly applied the ordinary meaning of “inventory.”]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2012/04/10/partnerships-partner%e2%80%99s-withdrawal-%e2%80%93-purchase-of-interest-%e2%80%93-valuation-%e2%80%93-%e2%80%98inventory%e2%80%99/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Partnership  By Estoppel – de Facto – Joint Venture – Vertical Integration Plan – Corporate – Veil Piercing&#160;</title>
		<link>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2012/03/20/partnership-by-estoppel-%e2%80%93-de-facto-%e2%80%93-joint-venture-%e2%80%93-vertical-integration-plan-%e2%80%93-corporate-%e2%80%93-veil-piercing/</link>
		<comments>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2012/03/20/partnership-by-estoppel-%e2%80%93-de-facto-%e2%80%93-joint-venture-%e2%80%93-vertical-integration-plan-%e2%80%93-corporate-%e2%80%93-veil-piercing/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 20 Mar 2012 20:35:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Courts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Most Important Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[N.C. Court of Appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Partnerships]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Corporate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[de Facto]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Joint Venture]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Partnership By Estoppel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Veil Piercing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Vertical Integration Plan]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nclawyersweekly.com/?p=61119</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<em>Best Cartage, Inc. v. Stonewall Packaging, LLC</em> Plaintiff alleged the two defendants were working together to vertically integrate their production of cardboard. The allegations of defendants’ combined efforts, including the fact that one of defendant Jackson Paper Manufacturing Co.’s officers signed the contract at issue on behalf of defendant Stonewall Packaging, were sufficient to state claims of partnership by estoppel, de facto partnership, and joint venture. However, plaintiff failed to allege the wrongdoing needed to state a claim for piercing the corporate veil.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2012/03/20/partnership-by-estoppel-%e2%80%93-de-facto-%e2%80%93-joint-venture-%e2%80%93-vertical-integration-plan-%e2%80%93-corporate-%e2%80%93-veil-piercing/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Partnership &#8211; Contract With Partner &#8211; Knowledge of Partnership &#8211; Corporate &#8211; Piercing the Veil Claim&#160;</title>
		<link>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2011/06/15/partnership-contract-with-partner-knowledge-of-partnership-corporate-piercing-the-veil-claim/</link>
		<comments>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2011/06/15/partnership-contract-with-partner-knowledge-of-partnership-corporate-piercing-the-veil-claim/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 15 Jun 2011 15:38:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Courts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Most Important Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[N.C. Business Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Partnerships]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Contract With Partner]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Corporate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Knowledge of Partnership]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Partnership]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[piercing the veil claim]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nclawyersweekly.com/?p=56227</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<em>Best Cartage, Inc. v. Stonewall Packaging, LLC </em>Knowing about defendant Stonewall Packaging, LLC's partnership with defendant Jackson Paper Manufacturing Co., plaintiff nevertheless chose to enter into a contract with Stonewall alone. Plaintiff is bound by that choice and has no breach of contract claim against Jackson.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2011/06/15/partnership-contract-with-partner-knowledge-of-partnership-corporate-piercing-the-veil-claim/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Partnership &#8211; Contract &#8211; Involuntary Termination &#8211; Covenant Not to Compete &#8211; Waiver Payments&#160;</title>
		<link>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2011/04/18/partnership-contract-involuntary-termination-covenant-not-to-compete-waiver-payments/</link>
		<comments>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2011/04/18/partnership-contract-involuntary-termination-covenant-not-to-compete-waiver-payments/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 18 Apr 2011 18:39:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Courts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[N.C. Business Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Partnerships]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Contract]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Covenant Not to Compete]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Involuntary Termination]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Partnership]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Waiver Payments]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nclawyersweekly.com/?p=55277</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Williams Overman Pierce, LLP v. Duncan (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-15-0369, 8 pp.) (James L. Gale, J.) N.C. Bus. Ct. Click here for the full text of the opinion. Holding: Pursuant to the parties&#8217; settlement agreement, after being involuntarily terminated from the plaintiff-partnership, defendant can avoid the parties&#8217; covenant not to compete if he pays the [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2011/04/18/partnership-contract-involuntary-termination-covenant-not-to-compete-waiver-payments/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Partnership &#8211; At Will &#8211; Dissolution &#8211; Civil Practice &#8211; Discovery &#8211; Protective Order &#8211; Continued Profits &#8211; Personal Relationship&#160;</title>
		<link>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2010/10/29/partnership-at-will-dissolution-civil-practice-discovery-protective-order-continued-profits-personal-relationship/</link>
		<comments>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2010/10/29/partnership-at-will-dissolution-civil-practice-discovery-protective-order-continued-profits-personal-relationship/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 29 Oct 2010 18:26:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Courts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[N.C. Business Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Partnerships]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[At Will]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Civil Practice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Continued Profits]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[discovery]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Dissolution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Partnership]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Personal Relationship]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Protective Order]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nclawyersweekly.com/?p=52499</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Coremin v. McNamara. (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-15-1038, 13 pp.) (Ben F. Tennille, Ch.J.) N.C. Bus. Ct. Holding: Where the parties&#8217; partnership was at will, either partner could end the partnership, regardless of motive, without breaching the partnership agreement. Hence, plaintiff is not entitled to information about the business&#8217; profits after the partnership ended, nor is [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2010/10/29/partnership-at-will-dissolution-civil-practice-discovery-protective-order-continued-profits-personal-relationship/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Partnerships &#8211; Agency &#8211;Apparent Agency &amp; Apparent Authority &#8211;Investments &#8211;Estoppel &#8211;Banks &amp; Banking &#8211;Tort/Negligence &#8211;Conversion &#8211;Forgery&#160;</title>
		<link>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2009/09/14/partnership-agency-apparent-agency-apparent-authority-investments-estoppel-banks-banking-tortnegligence-conversion-forgery/</link>
		<comments>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2009/09/14/partnership-agency-apparent-agency-apparent-authority-investments-estoppel-banks-banking-tortnegligence-conversion-forgery/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 14 Sep 2009 06:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>dmc-admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Most Important Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[N.C. Business Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Partnerships]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nclawyersweekly.com/2009/09/14/partnership-agency-apparent-agency-apparent-authority-investments-estoppel-banks-banking-tortnegligence-conversion-forgery/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Leiber v. Arboretum Joint Venture, LLC. (Lawyers Weekly No. 09-15-0847, 34 pp.) (Ben Tennille, J.) N.C. Bus. Ct. Holding: For 15 years, plaintiff&#8217;s $445,000 investment in the defendant-investment ventures was handled by Wolfram Count von Spreti, and plaintiff never complained to defendants about this arrangement. Defendants were entitled to treat Spreti as plaintiff&#8217;s agent. Summary [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2009/09/14/partnership-agency-apparent-agency-apparent-authority-investments-estoppel-banks-banking-tortnegligence-conversion-forgery/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Partnerships &#8211; Unfair Trade Practices &#8211;Fiduciary Duty Breach &#8211;Treble Damages &#8211;Internal Partnership Acts &#8211;Acts Affecting Commerce&#160;</title>
		<link>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2009/05/11/partnerships-unfair-trade-practices-fiduciary-duty-breach-treble-damages-internal-partnership-acts-acts-affecting-commerce/</link>
		<comments>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2009/05/11/partnerships-unfair-trade-practices-fiduciary-duty-breach-treble-damages-internal-partnership-acts-acts-affecting-commerce/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 11 May 2009 06:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>dmc-admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Most Important Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[N.C. Court of Appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Partnerships]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nclawyersweekly.com/2009/05/11/partnerships-unfair-trade-practices-fiduciary-duty-breach-treble-damages-internal-partnership-acts-acts-affecting-commerce/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[White v. Thompson. (Lawyers Weekly No. 09-07-0431, 22 pp.) (James A. Wynn Jr., J.) (Sam Ervin IV, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) Appealed from Columbus County Superior Court. (Douglas B. Sasser, J.) N.C. App. Holding: A partner&#8217;s internal partnership acts were not in or affecting commerce, meaning that the trial court erred [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2009/05/11/partnerships-unfair-trade-practices-fiduciary-duty-breach-treble-damages-internal-partnership-acts-acts-affecting-commerce/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Partnerships &#8211; Limited Partner &#8212; Civil Practice &#8212; Standing &#8212; Special Duty or Distinct Injury&#160;</title>
		<link>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2009/04/27/partnerships-limited-partner-civil-practice-standing-special-duty-or-distinct-injury/</link>
		<comments>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2009/04/27/partnerships-limited-partner-civil-practice-standing-special-duty-or-distinct-injury/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 27 Apr 2009 06:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>dmc-admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Most Important Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[N.C. Court of Appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Partnerships]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nclawyersweekly.com/2009/04/27/partnerships-limited-partner-civil-practice-standing-special-duty-or-distinct-injury/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Gaskin v. J.S. Proctor Co. (Lawyers Weekly No. 09-07-0369, 16 pp.) (Donna S. Stroud, J.) Appealed from Mecklenburg County Superior Court. (Albert Diaz, J.) N.C. App. Holding: Like a shareholder, before a limited partner can sue his general partners, he must allege a special duty owed to him or a distinct injury suffered by him [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2009/04/27/partnerships-limited-partner-civil-practice-standing-special-duty-or-distinct-injury/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
