That feeling I’ve been getting in my gut every time I go to McDonald’s wasn’t (just) indigestion—fast food really has been getting more expensive lately. Bloomberg recently reported that burger prices have been beefing up at a faster rate than ...

Tagged with: Costs

Fowler v. Riddle (Lawyers Weekly No. 15-16-0378, 12 pp.) (Douglas McCullough, J.) Appealed from Buncombe County Superior Court (Gary Gavenus, J.) N.C. App. Unpub. Holding: Pursuant to N.C. R. Civ. P. 41(d), after plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their first action and ...

Tagged with: Costs

Country Vintner of North Carolina, LLC v. E. & J. Gallo Winery, Inc. Even though defendant (the prevailing party) spent $111,047.75 for the technical, specialized services that were needed in order to “collect, process, preserve, track, copy to digital format, and ultimately produce” the large amount of electronically stored information (ESI) that was utilized in the discovery process in this case, under 28 U.S.C. § 1920(4), defendant is only entitled to recover “fees for exemplification and the costs of making copies….”

Tagged with: Civil Practice Costs discovery

Springs v. City of Charlotte Plaintiff presented evidence that defendant knew its bus driver had been involved in multiple preventable accidents but took no action beyond some counseling and an interview with him. Plaintiff’s evidence was sufficient to go to the jury on a claim for punitive damages.

Tagged with: Civil Practice Costs Judges Punitive Damages Tort/Negligence

State v. Arrington Even though defendant was pulled over for an unrelated equipment violation, cooperated with the arresting officer and passed some of the field sobriety tests, his two .08 intoxilyzer scores support his conviction of driving while impaired. No error in defendant’s conviction of driving while impaired nor in the imposition of costs.

Tagged with: Costs Criminal Practice dwi sentencing

Khomyak v. Meek If we were writing on a clean slate, we would affirm the trial court’s award of costs to the prevailing defendants in the amount of only $1,000, although they requested $15,599. However, recent decisions by this court require us to rule that the trial court lacked discretion to deny certain costs. We reverse the trial court’s award of $1,000 in costs and remand for reconsideration in light of Springs v. City of Charlotte, 704 S.E.2d 319 (2011).

Tagged with: Civil Practice Costs

Smith v. White Even though defendant paid for repairs to plaintiff’s motorcycle before trial, the cost of the repairs was admissible as some evidence of the difference in the value of the motorcycle before the accident and immediately after the accident. Since the trial court did not allow plaintiff to present such evidence, the court correctly granted plaintiff a new trial on the issue of diminution of the value of his motorcycle. We affirm the trial court’s (1) grant of plaintiff’s motion for a new trial as to the value of his motorcycle, (2) denial of plaintiff’s motion for a new trial based on the jury’s alleged compromise verdict, and (3) award of costs to defendant.

Tagged with: Costs Damages medical expenses Tort/Negligence

Schaefer v. Town of Hillsborough On a prior appeal, this court remanded “for entry of judgment directing [respondent] to issue the conditional use permit for which petitioners applied.” Since we did not remand for further proceedings, the superior court was correct to order respondent to issue the conditional use permit without imposing any new or different conditions. Affirmed.

Tagged with: appeals Civil Practice Costs Municipal Zoning

Peters v. Pennington. (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-07-0215, 42 pp.) (Robert N. Hunter Jr., J.) Appealed from Mecklenburg County District Court. (Rebecca T. Tin, J.) N.C. App. Click here for the full text of the opinion. Holding:  Where there was evidence ...

Tagged with: Child Custody Costs Domestic Relations Interest Mecklenburg County rule 11 Rule 11 Sanctions sanctions Visitation

Springs v. City of Charlotte. Even though there was conflicting evidence as to whether plaintiff's permanent injuries were caused by the accident or by her multiple sclerosis (or the treatments for her MS), plaintiff presented sufficient . . .

Tagged with: Causation Costs directed verdict Expert Witness Fees JNOV Mecklenburg County Punitive Damages Tort/Negligence