By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: April 24,2013
Austin v. Alltell Communications, LLC Despite one positive performance review and a new supervisor who made disparaging remarks about her own and plaintiff’s age, plaintiff’s history of performance problems shows that she was not fired because of her age.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: July 12,2012
McMillan v. Ryan Jackson Properties, LLC The hearing on the defendant-contractor’s summary judgment motion was conducted on July 7, 2011, five weeks after plaintiffs were notified that the contractor’s project file was available for pick-up. Plaintiffs offered no explanation for their three-week delay in picking up the project file. Five weeks was a reasonable time for plaintiffs and their expert to retrieve and examine the contractor’s file in order to discover any evidence which could be used to oppose the summary judgment motion. We find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s denial of plaintiffs’ motion to continue.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: June 18,2012
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Hospital Authority v. Talford In support of its claim that the defendant-patient owed it $14,419.57 for a four-day hospitalization, the plaintiff-hospital submitted the affidavits of its Manager of Patient Financial Services, Legal Accounts and its Director, Revenue Management. These affidavits were minimally sufficient to satisfy the hospital’s burden of proof as to damages since they indicate that the bill was (1) reasonable based on the amounts other similarly situated market participants charged similarly situated patients and (2) consistent with various published billing guidelines and regulations.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: January 19,2012
Williamson v. Long Leaf Pine, LLC The petitioners’ motion for summary judgment in a boundary dispute was properly granted since the affidavit prepared by the respondents’ expert is not substantial evidence that would persuade a person of reasonable mind to accept that the boundary line was improperly located.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: January 19,2012
Katibah v. Target Stores Where there is conflicting testimony as to how obvious a danger to a store customer is - in this case, a puddle of urine that caused a fall in the store’s restroom - summary judgment cannot be granted. In addition, because defendant’s motion for summary judgment fails on the duty to warn, defendant’s motion for summary judgment based on the derivative affirmative defense of contributory negligence, based on plaintiff’s failure to notice, cannot be considered.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: December 21,2011
Davis v. Cumberland County Board of Education Because the plaintiff-guardian only presented evidence of the child’s fall and his injuries and did not present any admissible evidence that a reasonable school board would have, under the circumstances, done anything differently than the defendant-board did, summary judgment was properly granted to the board.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: December 1,2011
Buchi Corp. v. Martin There are factual disputes regarding (1) whether the debtor acted in a fiduciary capacity with regard to funds that his former employer deposited into his account and (2) whether the debtor knew the amount of commissions that the employer believed was due under the parties’ severance agreement. Without resolving these factual disputes, the court cannot grant summary judgment as to whether the debtor’s actions constituted fraud or defalcation under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(4) or willful and malicious injury under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6).
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: November 15,2011
Baysden v. State The trial court erred by granting the state’s summary judgment motion and denying the summary judgment motion filed by plaintiff since he has a right under N.C. Const. art. I, § 30 to possess a firearm despite the prohibition set out in G.S. § 14-415.1.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: November 10,2011
Petty v. City of Kannapolis As the city presented evidence that it has an easement, and plaintiffs have not presented any evidence which raises any genuine issue of material fact regarding the existence of the easement across their property, the trial court properly granted summary judgment in favor of the city.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: September 27,2011
Hatteras Realty, Inc. v. Petty When the parties settled a prior dispute about defendants’ advertising practices, defendants agreed that they would not (1) use data obtained from plaintiff’s web site to make comparisons to defendants’ businesses and (2) use plaintiff’s name in advertising materials. Defendants contend their use of data from plaintiff’s website did not breach the settlement agreement because they did not use plaintiff’s name; plaintiffs contend the provisions are separately enforceable, so defendants breached the settlement agreement.
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.
