County of Catawba v. Frye Regional Medical Center, Inc. (Lawyers Weekly No. 14-15-1101, 5 pp.) (Louis Bledsoe III, J.) 2014 NCBC 57 Holding: There are genuine issues of material fact concerning whether the statute of limitations has run on plaintiff’s ...

Tagged with: Statute of Limitations summary judgment

Owens v. Baltimore City State’s Attorneys Office (Lawyers Weekly No. 14-01-0925, 74 pp.) (Motz, J.) No. 12-2173, Sept. 24, 2014; 4th Cir. Holding: A man who served 20 years in prison for a rape and murder he did not commit ...

Tagged with: Statute of Limitations

PNC Bank, N.A. v. Welsh Realty, LLC (Lawyers Weekly No. 14-02-0878, 6 pp.) (Terrence Boyle, J.) 5:13-cv-00203; E.D.N.C. Holding: Where the loans at issue were made in 2006 and 2008, the defendant-guarantors’ counterclaims under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act are ...

Tagged with: Statute of Limitations

Bradley v. Doe (Lawyers Weekly No. 14-16-0678, 14 pp.) (Sam Ervin IV, J.) Appealed from Nash County Superior Court (Quentin Sumner, J.) N.C. App. Unpub. Holding: When plaintiff tried to sue his underinsured motorist carrier after a hit-and-run accident, he ...

Tagged with: Corporate Statute of Limitations

WASHINGTON — The ability of a group of North Carolina homeowners to bring a lawsuit over latent contamination in their well water will come down to the U.S. Supreme Court’s answer to a single, if technical, question: Is there a ...

Tagged with: Asheville Statute of Limitations Statute of Repose

Foot Locker, Inc. v. Best Although defendant proffered evidence that he quit his job without repaying relocation expenses on Aug. 29, 2008, plaintiff proffered evidence that defendant remained employed through Sept. 2, 2008. The purported breach of contract occurred when defendant’s employment ended without his repaying the relocation expenses; hence, there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether plaintiff’s Sept. 2, 2011 complaint was filed within the three-year statute of limitations.

Tagged with: Statute of Limitations

promissory note Even though the defendant-borrower’s promissory note had an original due date of April 14, 2007, the note indicated that it could be extended, and the defendant-guarantor’s guaranty said the guarantor would be liable for the borrower’s present and future indebtedness. Therefore, the plaintiff-bank’s April 13, 2012 claim against the guarantor is not barred by the three-year statute of limitations.

Tagged with: Statute of Limitations

Davis v. Woodlake Partners, LLC Although the parties’ infrastructure agreement and an addendum were not signed under seal, they were part of the parties’ purchase contract, which was signed under seal; therefore, a 10-year statute of limitations applies to all provisions of the contract, including the infrastructure agreement and the addendum.

Tagged with: Statute of Limitations

The statute of limitations is like a loud, ever ticking alarm clock. Once it goes off, a plaintiff’s suit is finished forever. But one North Carolina businessman may get to bring a suit against his bank despite filing the case well after the statute of limitations expired. The state’s Court of Appeals said the bank’s promises to forgive the debt essentially hit the snooze button.

Tagged with: Statute of Limitations

DiFederico v. Marriott Int’l Inc. The family of a former naval commander who worked as a private security contractor and who was killed in a 2008 terrorist bombing at the Marriott Hotel in Islamabad, Pakistan, is entitled to heightened deference to their decision to sue Marriott in a Maryland federal court instead of a Pakistani court, and because the district court erred in its analysis of the forum non conveniens issue, the 4th Circuit reverses dismissal of the suit and remands the matter.

Tagged with: Statute of Limitations