By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: February 9,2012
Muteff v. Invacare Corp. Where a woman died after her wheelchair caught fire, the trial court erred in instructing the jury on insulating negligence, but such error did not prejudice the plaintiff since the jury could not have found the defendants liable for negligence after finding the wheelchair was not defective.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: February 8,2012
Cox v. Roach After picking up old x-rays to recycle them, plaintiffs were falsely accused of stealing the x-rays; however, plaintiffs failed to show that the defendants who were involved in their arrest were acting without probable caus
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: February 8,2012
In re Fifth Third Bank Even though appraisals of mountain property were six times higher than the land’s final tax value, we reject the buyers’ claims of unfair trade practices, negligence and negligent misrepresentation because the buyers did not rely upon the appraisals in deciding whether to purchase the lots. Where the underlying tort claims fail, the claim of civil conspiracy also fails. Further, we affirm the trial court’s award of costs to defendants, and affirm exclusion of plaintiff’s expert testimony, which was submitted late and included false statements as to the timing.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: February 7,2012
Wortman v. Hutaff Since there were no qualified trust beneficiaries at the time the defendants submitted their resignations as trustees and as executors of the settlor’s estate, defendants were required to obtain court approval before resigning. Plaintiffs allege that defendants were negligent and breached their fiduciary duty to plaintiffs when, after they ineffectively resigned, defendants failed to protect estate-owned property that might have eventually been transferred to the pour-over trust once the estate was settled. Because these acts and omissions occurred less than three years before plaintiffs filed their complaint, plaintiffs’ claims are not time-barred.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: February 2,2012
Benzing v. Tharrington-Smith, LLP Plaintiff claims that defendants wrongfully obtained a background check on him for use in domestic violence and child custody matters. Plaintiff’s allegations state a claim under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, so this court has federal question jurisdiction.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: February 2,2012
Pittman v. United States Even though the Federal Tort Claims Act does not waive the government’s sovereign immunity with regard to intentional torts, plaintiff has nevertheless stated a claim by alleging that a National Guard sergeant failed to intervene while a specialist under his command gave alcohol to a 17-year-old recruit and engaged in sexual relations with her.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: February 2,2012
Crop Production Services, Inc. v. Ormond Defendants allege generally that, once this contract dispute arose, plaintiff strong-armed defendants’ usual suppliers into refusing to do business with defendants. However, defendants do not explicitly assert that they expected to buy supplies from their “regular suppliers”; moreover, defendants do not allege the nature and length of their relationship with these suppliers or even the suppliers’ names and locations. Therefore, defendants have failed to state a claim for tortious interference with a prospective economic advantage.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: February 2,2012
Walker v. Medtronic Inc. The 4th Circuit upholds the district court decision that plaintiff has no common law tort claim against defendant Medtronic, maker of the allegedly defective SynchroMed pump for delivery of medication through a catheter, as her claim is preempted by the Medical Device Amendments of 1976 and regulations which provided for premarket approval by the federal Food and Drug Administration.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: February 1,2012
Smith v. Lewis Defendants’ misappropriation of trade secrets counterclaim refers only generally to confidential company financial information as the “trade secrets” that plaintiff misappropriated by allegedly sharing with member(s) of his family. Defendant Douglas Lewis said in his affidavit that plaintiff removed private and personal records belonging to defendants Douglas and Linda Lewis as well as, among other things, clients’ confidential financial records, social security numbers, income statements and financial statements without the clients’ knowledge or consent.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: February 1,2012
Cobb ex rel. Knight v. Town of Blowing Rock According to Judge Stroud’s dissent, plaintiff’s motion for a new trial was correctly denied because the jury instructions for contributory negligence already took into account the plaintiff’s age, so plaintiff was not entitled to a jury instruction that increased the defendant-landowner’s duty based on the plaintiff’s age.
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
In re Hutchinson Where the state agreed to the removal of a sex offender from its sex offender registry, it cannot ask the courts to rescind the removal because offenders are required to be registered for 10 years when the state raises that issue for the first time on appeal. The trial court, which upheld the removal, has subject matter jurisdiction on petitions of termination of registration even when the sex offenders have been registered in North Carolina for less than the normally requisite 10 years.
State v. Reynolds Even though, when the trial judge informed defendant of the maximum sentence he could receive if he pled guilty, the judge was only off by three months, we cannot say that an additional three months of possible imprisonment is not prejudicial. Further, we are reluctant to establish precedent for a trial court’s providing incorrect information to a defendant prior to accepting a guilty plea.
State v. Shaw Even though a defendant may waive his right to be present at trial, he has no right to be absent from his trial.
State v. Williams Although the bail-bond surety located and surrendered defendant to the sheriff on the 150th day after her failure to appear, the surety did so at 9:40 p.m., after the courthouse had closed for the day. We do not agree that the 150-day period set out in G.S. § 15A-544.5 extends until 11:59 p.m. on the 150th day.
Workplace strife is increasingly boiling over into the realms of social media. But when employees rant about their bosses on Facebook and badmouth the companies they work for on Twitter, what are the repercussions?
In re Hutchinson Where the state agreed to the removal of a sex offender from its sex offender registry, it cannot ask the courts to rescind the removal because offenders are required to be registered for 10 years when the state raises that issue for the first time on appeal. The trial court, which upheld the removal, has subject matter jurisdiction on petitions of termination of registration even when the sex offenders have been registered in North Carolina for less than the normally requisite 10 years.
State v. Reynolds Even though, when the trial judge informed defendant of the maximum sentence he could receive if he pled guilty, the judge was only off by three months, we cannot say that an additional three months of possible imprisonment is not prejudicial. Further, we are reluctant to establish precedent for a trial court’s providing incorrect information to a defendant prior to accepting a guilty plea.
State v. Shaw Even though a defendant may waive his right to be present at trial, he has no right to be absent from his trial.
