By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: August 8,2012
State v. Boyd Where there was no evidence that defendant “removed” the kidnapping victim, it was plain error for the trial court to instruct the jury that it could find defendant guilty if he confined, restrained “or removed the victim from one place to another.”
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: July 31,2012
New Jerusalem Rebirth & Restoration Ministries, Inc. v. Meyer The N.C. courts have not addressed whether an insurance adjuster may be subject to individual liability for unfair trade practices. In the absence of an N.C. case that squarely resolves that plaintiff’s claim is not actionable, there is at least some possibility that plaintiff may recover against the defendant-adjuster under G.S. Chapter 75.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: June 15,2012
Bank of America Inc. v. Campbell Even though Anthony Clay Campbell purports to be defendants’ attorney-in-fact, since he is not an attorney-at-law, he is not authorized to represent defendants in court.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: February 21,2012
Hardig v. Certainteed Corp. Even if the plaintiff class were limited to the 501 homes in the Fieldstone Farms subdivision in Indian Trail, the materials alone for replacing the allegedly defective siding would cost $4,000 per home, and plaintiffs seek treble damages under the N.C. Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act; therefore, the amount in controversy for the materials alone exceeds $6 million.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: January 26,2012
Bullock v. Napolitano The 4th Circuit upholds dismissal of this Title VII race discrimination suit filed by an African-American who was dismissed from the federal air marshal training program; the U.S. did not consent to be sued in North Carolina state court and removal of the suit to federal court, under the doctrine of derivative jurisdiction, did not cure that jurisdictional defect.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: December 1,2011
Ansley v. HealthMarkets, Inc. The language of a health insurance policy was not so clear that, as a matter of law, plaintiffs should have figured out as soon as they read the policy that it would not pay for what the defendant-insurance agent said it would pay for. Therefore, defendants have not shown that plaintiffs’ fraud and unfair trade practices claims are time-barred. Plaintiffs’ motion to remand to state court is granted. Plaintiffs’ request for costs and expenses is denied.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: August 8,2011
State v. Boyd According to the victim’s own testimony, the entirety of her encounter with defendant occurred within the confines of her living room. There was evidence that defendant confined and restrained the victim, but there was no evidence that he “removed” her. The trial court should not have given the jury the alternative instruction that defendant could be convicted of kidnapping if he “removed” the victim “from one place to another.”
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: June 24,2011
Mathis v. Hoffman After her neighbors mistakenly built their fence on her property, defendant was not entitled to choose her remedy. It was within the trial court’s authority to enter an injunction allowing plaintiffs to move the fence to their own property at their expense. We affirm summary judgment for plaintiffs.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: April 1,2011
Red Barn Farms, LLC v. General Electric Capital Corp. (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-03-0321, 18 pp.) (William L. Osteen Jr., J.) M.D.N.C. Holding: After this court granted defendant General Electric Capital Corp. (GE) a default judgment against plaintiffs herein, GE docketed its judgment in N.C. state court. Plaintiffs filed this action in state court alleging that [...]
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: February 23,2011
Crespin-Valladares v. Holder. (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-01-0197, 19 pp.) (Motz, J.) No. 09-1423, Feb. 16, 2011; On Petition for Review. 4th Cir. Click here for the full text of the opinion. Holding: Saying it could conceive of few social groups “more readily identifiable than the family,” the 4th Circuit grants a petition for review of [...]
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
Bartlett v. Wayne County Board of Education Plaintiffs contend that the majority of eyewitnesses in this case testified that the responding officer’s diagram depicting the accident scene was accurate, that the diagram demonstrates plaintiffs’ “van had to have been almost directly in front of the bus at the time [the bus driver] started her turn,” and that this evidence conclusively established that the bus driver failed to yield the right-of-way to plaintiffs’ van.
Fidelity Bank v. North Carolina Department of Revenue Even though the N.C. Revenue Act uses the Internal Revenue Code to determine state net income, and even though the Code treats “market discount income” on U.S. Treasury bonds as interest for purposes of the Code, under the N.C. Revenue Act market discount income on U.S. Treasury bonds is treated as income rather than interest.
Apex Tool Group, LLC v. Ingersoll-Rand Co. Neither plaintiff nor the individual defendants are Texas residents; nevertheless, each of the individual defendants’ employment agreements includes an unambiguous and mandatory forum selection clause, which says any lawsuit involving the agreement must be brought in Harris County, Texas. The employment agreements were entered into by plaintiff’s predecessor and the individual defendants, who apparently did not live in Texas when they entered into the contracts and thus apparently anticipated interstate travel in the event of a trial.
