Quantcast
Home (page 2)

Tag Archives: first impression

Civil Practice – Prior Action Pending – Administratively Closed – First Impression – Tort/Negligence – Constructive Fraud – Domestic Relations – Separation Agreement (access required)

Khashman v. Khashman (Lawyers Weekly No. 012-157-16, 17 pp.) (Ann Marie Calabria, J.) Appealed from Mecklenburg County Superior Court (Jesse Caldwell III, J.) N.C. App. Unpub. Holding: Plaintiff’s constructive fraud claim, based on the parties’ separation agreement, is abated by ...

Read More »

Civil Practice – Attorney’s Fee Denial – Trial Court’s Findings – First Impression – Unfair Trade Practices – Appeals – Discovery Violations – Attorney’s Fee Awards (access required)

E. Brooks Wilkins Family Medicine, P.A. v. WakeMed (Lawyers Weekly No. 011-005-16, 24 pp.) (Lucy Inman, J.) Appealed from Wake County Superior Court (Michael O’Foghludha, J.) N.C. App. Holding: When a trial court exercises its discretion and denies a motion ...

Read More »

Domestic Relations – Civil Practice – Subject Matter Jurisdiction — Equitable Distribution – Military Pension – CRSC Election – First Impression (access required)

Hillard v. Hillard After an equitable distribution order awarded the defendant-wife half of the plaintiff-husband’s military pension, the husband unilaterally elected to receive combat-related special compensation (CRSC) instead of his pension. Although federal law preempts state law with regard to CRSC and such payments cannot be classified as marital property subject to equitable distribution, CRSC may be treated as a distributional factor in a property settlement. The trial court had subject matter jurisdiction over the wife’s motion to modify the equitable distribution order.

Read More »

Civil Practice – Subject Matter Jurisdiction – Case or Controversy – First Impression — Public Utilities – Cable TV – Municipal — Pole Attachment Rates (access required)

Time Warner Entertainment Advance/Newhouse Partnership v. Town of Landis Since the defendant-town has merely proposed a pole-attachment rate to which the plaintiff-cable television provider objects, there is no controversy for the court to adjudicate.

Read More »