By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: July 11,2012
Escarraman v. Northwoods at Coulwood Homeowners Association, Inc. Where there was an actual agreement between the defendants covering the crossclaim at issue, defendant Landmark Capital LLC could not recover on its quasi contract unjust enrichment crossclaim.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: May 8,2012
Dulaney v. Inmar, Inc. Before Jan. 1, 2010, the defendant-employer gave the plaintiff-employee a copy of its “2010 Promotion Services Rebate and Fulfillment Services Sales and Renewal Incentive Plan.” According to the Plan, incentive payments were to be made approximately six weeks after the end of the quarter in which the qualifying sales were made; moreover, one had to be a Plan participant at the time of the payout in order to receive the incentive payment. Plaintiff resigned on July 22, 2010, prior to the Plan’s incentive payout date for the quarter ending June 30, 2010; therefore, the employer did not violate the Wage and Hour Act when it failed to make incentive payments to plaintiff for her second-quarter sales.
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. Bean Although the state elicited evidence that defendant exercised her right to remain silent, given the other evidence of defendant’s guilt – her own admissions to a nurse, “I killed my husband just because I finally had enough of him” and “I’m guilty” and the victim’s fear that defendant would kill him – the prosecutor’s comments and questions regarding whether defendant mentioned self-defense prior to trial had little bearing on the jury finding defendant guilty.
State v. Primus Even though the list of the elements of attempted felonious larceny set out in State v. Weaver, 123 N.C. App. 276, 473 S.E.2d 362 (1996), included “falling short of the completed offense,” and even though the state proved that defendant completed the offense of felonious larceny, this does not require the conclusion that proof of the completed offense disproves the attempt to commit. The completed commission of a crime must of necessity include an attempt to commit the crime.
State v. Ingram though one of the eyewitnesses was only 10 years old at the time of the shooting, the credibility of the witness’s identification of defendant was a question for the jury.
