While business litigation attorneys often find themselves in federal court based on diversity issues, it’s rare for constitutional issues to pop up in state cases. But recently, the North Carolina Court of Appeals overruled a lower court’s denial of an out-of-state judgment, concluding that the trial judge failed to consider the constitutional implications of the Full Faith and Credit Clause.
Team Daniel, LLC v. North Carolina Department of Health & Human Services, Division of Medical Assistance 42 C.F.R. § 455.21(a)(1) says Medicaid payments must be suspended during the investigation of a credible allegation of fraud unless good cause is found for not suspending payments or suspending them in part only. The chief of the Division of Medical Assistance Program Integrity Behavioral Health Section testified several times that his section made no effort to consider good cause prior to suspending payments to petitioner, and there is no evidence that anyone else gave any consideration to the regulation’s “good cause” exceptions prior to imposing the suspension.
J.W. v. Johnston County Board of Education Since no N.C. appellate court has recognized a fiduciary duty between a middle school student and his principal, superintendent or school board, this court will not so expand N.C. law.
Elabanjo v. Bellevance Even though plaintiff’s district-court conviction of being drunk and disorderly was overturned on appeal, the conviction conclusively establishes that the defendant-police officers had probable cause to arrest plaintiff on those charges.
Cloverleaf Golf Course, Inc. v. Bayer Cropscience LP Where plaintiff alleges that defendants violated 35 U.S.C. § 292 by falsely marking articles with expired patents for the purpose of deceiving their competitors and the public into believing that such articles are covered by the falsely marked patents, plaintiff’s cause of action has been abrogated by the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, which became effective on Sept. 16, 2011 and applies to every action pending at that time.
Griffin Farm & Landfill, Inc. v. Town of Unionville Three authorizations are required to build and operate a construction and demolition (C&D) landfill: local zoning approval, a local government franchise, and a permit from the state. Where plaintiffs stopped accepting C&D waste seven months before their franchise expired, and where the defendant-town exercised its discretion in denying plaintiffs a new franchise, plaintiffs did not have a common law vested interest to a new franchise agreement.
State v. Allen Since there was other evidence that the victim was bleeding in the vaginal region, and since the state is not required to reveal exculpatory information during plea negotiations, defendant’s constitutional rights were not violated when the state initially failed to reveal a confirmation test’s negative results for blood on the victim’s underpants and sleepers.
State v. Frederick Before defendant represented himself in a hearing on his motion to suppress evidence, as to possible sentences, the trial judge only warned defendant that he could go to prison for “a long, long time” and that a conviction would result in “a mandatory active prison sentence.”
Sides v. Ikner The plaintiff-father fully complied with the custody order which gave him joint legal and secondary physical custody of his son, “Luke.” When he learned that the defendant-mother had joined the Air Force -- not the Air Force Reserves as she had told him -- and was moving to Germany, the father objected to allowing Luke to continue to live with the intervenor-grandmother.
Delhaize America, Inc. v. Lay The state Department of Revenue did not violate plaintiff’s procedural due process rights by forcing a combination of plaintiff and its subsidiary’s earnings, pursuant to G.S. § 105-130.6.