North Carolina Lawyers Weekly

We affirm the Court of Appeals’ decision (Defendant was indicted for felonious larceny for stealing a propane tank. Even though the state’s evidence that the tank was worth $1,300 included the values of any gas in the tank and the ...

We improvidently granted discretionary review of the Court of Appeals’ decision (Although the developer of a very hilly subdivision did not have a duty to inspect or monitor the construction site or to take precautions against negligent construction work, plaintiffs ...

We affirm the Court of Appeals’ decision (Where the trial court made findings of fact detailing past disagreements between the parties which illustrate their inability to communicate and the effect their contentious communications had on the minor children, the trial ...

According to the victim’s testimony, defendant first beat her for two hours while they were inside her parents’ beach trailer. The beating stopped while the couple packed up and got in their car to go home. Defendant then assaulted the ...

Where the factual allegations in the original indictment involving conspiratorial conduct in Nigeria to conceal proceeds of a fraud scheme in the United States provided the defendant notice of the accusations, and the superseding indictment departed from the original by ...

The complaint alleges the percentage interests that the plaintiff-investors claim to possess in defendant Omni Holding Group, LLC; that records received from Omni contain conflicting information concerning those interests; that Omni and defendant Alshalabi have refused to produce additional information ...

Matters of internal corporate management do not affect commerce as defined by G.S. Chapter 75. The fact that other entities benefited from the alleged deceptive conduct while plaintiff did not does not make the dispute one “in and affecting commerce.” ...

On a question of first impression, the court finds that the language of an excess flood insurance policy clearly bars plaintiff from suing the defendant-excess insurer for breach of contract until the primary flood insurer has admitted liability for or ...

After country club members protested plaintiff and defendant Packer’s joint venture to start an RV park at the country club, Packer told plaintiff he did not think the joint venture was reasonable “in the current environment.” Thereafter, Packer partnered with ...

When one of the plaintiff-franchisees sold one of his franchises in 2013, he signed a contract which released all claims against the defendant-franchisor. Since the release did not include a covenant not to sue, it cannot form the basis of ...