By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: May 2,2012
Mynhardt v. Elon University Even though the defendant-university and the defendant-national fraternity organization knew that some off-campus fraternity parties were violating university and fraternity rules, these defendants nevertheless owed no duty to plaintiff, an uninvited guest to one of those parties.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: May 2,2012
North Carolina Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co. v. Cully’s Motorcross Park, Inc. After defendants filed counterclaims in this declaratory judgment action, the plaintiff-insurer’s investigator called a police sergeant and gave the sergeant information that the insurance investigator had known for six months. The sergeant interviewed the person who had bought the insured property from defendants (as noted in the investigator’s file) and arrested defendant Volpe for obtaining property by false pretenses. The trial court did not err in determining that plaintiff initiated the proceedings against defendant Volpe.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: May 1,2012
Fontenot v. TASER International, Inc. (Lawyers Weekly No. 12-04-0464, 35 pp.) (Robert J. Conrad Jr., Ch.J.) 3:10-cv-125;W.D.N.C. Holding: Where plaintiff’s decedent never “used” the taser that killed him, the defendant-manufacturer was not entitled to a defense of contributory negligence. Defendant’s motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and a new trial are denied. Defendant’s motion for remittitur is granted.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: May 1,2012
Lewis v. Rapp A blog entry accusing a sitting judge of violating the Judicial Code of Conduct by openly supporting a state Senate candidate is not libel when the blogger does not know that the judge is running for reelection. However, when that blogger is alerted to the judge’s campaign, indicates he has read the entire code – including the section on judicial candidates’ freedom to support other candidates --and yet reasserts the accusation, libel has occurred.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: May 1,2012
Horsley v. Halifax Regional Medical Center, Inc. Plaintiff claims that she fell and suffered injuries because the defendant-hospital’s nurses failed to help her when she said she was going to fall. Plaintiff’s complaint did not need a certification under N.C. R. Civ. P. 9(j).
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: May 1,2012
Beeson v. Palombo Police Captain McKenzie informed a magistrate that the plaintiff-teacher had “touched [the] breast area” of two minor female students even after at least one of the students had covered herself with her arms and asked plaintiff not to touch her. This is certainly enough for a reasonable person to conclude that an offense had been committed and that plaintiff was the perpetrator. This finding of probable cause is not affected by defendant McKenzie’s failure to inform the magistrate that the minors and their parents may not have considered the matter criminal or that someone from the district attorney’s office thought there was not enough evidence to proceed with criminal charges.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: April 27,2012
Yates v. Brown Both plaintiff Yates and defendant Brown are minority shareholders of Renewable Fibers, LLC; consequently, their status as shareholders did not impose a fiduciary duty on defendant Brown with respect to plaintiff Yates.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: April 26,2012
Security Credit Corp. v. Mid/East Acceptance Corp. of N.C. Plaintiffs allege that, in support of a lawsuit brought against plaintiffs by a competitor, defendants lent money and provided free services to the competitor. Plaintiffs have failed to show how defendants’ alleged conduct falls within defendants’ regular business activities. Plaintiffs failed to allege that defendants’ actions were “in or affecting commerce”; consequently, plaintiffs failed to state a claim for unfair trade practices.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: April 17,2012
Stark v. Ford Motor Co. G.S. § 99B-3 shields a manufacturer from liability for modifications made to its product by another “party.” The term “party”, as used in the statute, means anyone, not just a party to the products liability lawsuit.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: April 16,2012
Variety Wholesalers, Inc. v. Salem Logistics Traffic Services, LLC Where plaintiff claims the defendant-lender converted funds that plaintiff transferred to the defendant-borrower, the court holds that funds transferred electronically may be sufficiently identified through evidence of the specific source, specific amount, and specific destination of the funds in question.
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
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.
Pickney v. Department of Transportation Even though the parties’ settlement agreement provided that plaintiff could “request a job reallocation or pay grade increase” and that defendant would “cooperate with such a request,” the settlement agreement did not provide plaintiff with any guarantee that he would actually receive a job reallocation or pay grade increase upon request. Even if plaintiff proved that defendant breached the settlement agreement by failing to cooperate with his request for a second job reallocation, plaintiff’s evidence provided no basis upon which the trial court could have properly calculated damages.
