Case law

STATE Ex Rel. COOPER v. McCLURE

2007 NCBC 24 · North Carolina Business Court · Jul 19, 2007

She has subsequently established a residence in Florida. At times relevant to this action she was owner and chief executive officer of CBM. … {35} The NCESPA board clearly did not want members to pursue their self- interest as they normally would in a competitive environment.

Keister v. Nat'l Council of the Young Men's Christian Ass'n of the United States

2013 NCBC 36 · North Carolina Business Court · Jul 18, 2013

An act or practice qualifies as "deceptive" under Chapter 75 if it "has a tendency to deceive." Dalton v. Camp, 353 N.C. 647, 656 (2001). … In each of those cases, it was alleged that one party clearly undertook to control or direct the interests of the other party. No such undertaking is alleged between Y-USA and Plaintiffs.

Morris v. Scenera Research, LLC

2012 NCBC 27 · North Carolina Business Court · May 14, 2012

{6} While the Parties disputed whether any bonuses were due after January 1, 2008, they agreed that any such bonus which is owed qualifies as “wages” under the Wage Act. … {30} Morris clearly demanded payment of bonuses, which he contended had been suspended but were accruing during 2008.

Volume Servs., Inc. v. Ovations Food Servs., L.P.

2018 NCBC 107 · North Carolina Business Court · Oct 17, 2018

App. 539, 543, 606 S.E.2d 353, 356–57 (2004) (“The function of [a] writ [of mandamus] is to compel the performance of a ministerial duty—not to establish a legal right, but to enforce one which has been established.” … “According to well-established North Carolina law, N.C. Const. art.

N Re Skybridge Terrace, LLC Litig.

2015 NCBC 26 · North Carolina Business Court · Mar 23, 2015

Here, in summary, the controlling uncontested facts established by the record include: a. … Phase I and Phase II were clearly described in the Declaration as separate phases and separate parcels.

Worley v. Moore

2018 NCBC 113 · North Carolina Business Court · Nov 2, 2018

The Merger Information Statement clearly stated that the earn out payments were not guaranteed, but instead were “contingent” and “uncertain.” (ECF No. 124.1, at pp. … The Merger Information Statement also provided information about the time frames for payment of the earn outs, but qualified that information by stating that the specified timeline would apply only “if any” payments were

Scr-Tech LLC v. Evonik Energy Servs. LLC

2011 NCBC 26 · North Carolina Business Court · Jul 22, 2011

may be met by proving that an essential element of the opposing party’s claim is nonexistent. 90 If the movant successfully makes such a showing, the burden then shifts to the nonmovant to establish the specific facts establishing … The fact that the process also might have other benefits does not qualify this step as a trade secret. Defendants’ Motion with respect to this general process step is GRANTED.

Crescent Univ. City Venture, LLC v. Ap Atl., Inc.

2019 NCBC 48 · North Carolina Business Court · Aug 14, 2019

The construction industry in particular would suffer, for it is in this  industry that we see most clearly the importance of the precise allocation of risk as secured by contract. … The ordinary purchaser of a home is not qualified to determine when or where a defect exists.

Tiller v. Phillips

2025 NCBC 63 · North Carolina Business Court · Oct 15, 2025

“The plaintiff bears the burden of establishing subject matter jurisdiction.” Lau v. Constable, 2022 NCBC LEXIS 75, at *10 (N.C. Super. Ct. July 11, 2022). 71. … This privilege “is qualified, not absolute,” and is generally overcome by factual allegations suggesting that the corporate officers acted for the officer’s “own benefit” or “personal interest.”

Quad Graphics, Inc. v. N.C. Dep't of Revenue

2021 NCBC 37 · North Carolina Business Court · Jun 23, 2021

Under the last antecedent rule, “relative and qualifying words, phrases, and clauses ordinarily are to be applied to the word or phrase immediately preceding and, unless the context indicates a contrary intent, are not … Further, the Court stated, “a substantial nexus is established when the taxpayer [or collector] ‘avails itself of the subsequent privilege of carrying on business’ in that jurisdiction.”

Taidoc Tech. Corp. v. Ok Biotech Co., Ltd.

2015 NCBC 71 · North Carolina Business Court · Jul 17, 2015

The moving party bears “‘the burden of clearly establishing lack of a triable issue’ to the trial court,” N.C. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sadler, 365 N.C. 178, 182, 711 S.E.2d 114, 116 (2011) (quoting N.C. … Member {37} OK Biotech’s “member” argument is premised on its contention that OK Biotech’s March 19, 2013 purchase of a forty-five percent (45%) membership interest in Prodigy qualifies OK Biotech as a “member” released

Bronson v. Burnham

2026 NCBC 45 · North Carolina Business Court · Apr 29, 2026

Burnham first asserts that he cannot be held liable for conduct relating to his management of the Pub because the acts of which the Bronsons complain are based on decisions for which he is immunized from liability by the … material fact as to whether the directors “engaged in a rational [decision-making] process” or “unreasonably permitted the waste of [the company’s] corporate assets”); Norment, 2022 NCBC LEXIS 73, at *33 (concluding that “clearly

Morris Int'l, Inc. v. Packer, 2021 Ncbc 66a

North Carolina Business Court · Nov 2, 2021

MI does not contend that the land that was to have been utilized for the original RV Park qualifies as an asset of the Joint Venture. … The letter can be read as a demand for information regarding the Joint Venture as it does not clearly differentiate between the prior and current RV projects at Olde Beau.

Kerry Bodenhamer Farms, LLC v. Nature's Pearl Corp.

2017 NCBC 27 · North Carolina Business Court · Mar 27, 2017

In view of these well-established principles, the Court concludes that KB Farms has not sufficiently alleged aggravating circumstances to support its section 75.1-1 claim. … The unusual facts of that case are clearly inapposite. 57.

Constr. Managers, Inc. v. Amory

2019 NCBC 31 · North Carolina Business Court · May 17, 2019

The allegations clearly allege that Amory downloaded a large quantity of information from Plaintiffs’ Box Account to his personal device(s), including many of CMI’s alleged trade secrets. … In the absence of such allegations, the mere fact that Amory was given substantial accounting and bookkeeping responsibility is not sufficient to establish a fiduciary relationship.

Campbell Sales Grp., Inc. v. Niroflex by Jiufeng Furniture, LLC

2022 NCBC 75 · North Carolina Business Court · Dec 5, 2022

Defendants argue that (1) the types of information identified by LIU do not actually qualify as trade secrets under North Carolina law; and (2) even if they did so qualify, this information was not subject to any reasonable … However, Genfine has not clearly explained the basis for its calculation of interest in these amounts.

Rcjj, LLC v. Rcwil Enters., LLC

2016 NCBC 44 · North Carolina Business Court · Jun 20, 2016

The moving party bears “the burden of clearly establishing lack of a triable issue” to the trial court. N.C. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sadler, 365 N.C. 178, 182, 711 S.E.2d 114, 116 (2011). … The record in this case does not establish that Crecelius clearly repudiated his fiduciary obligations to Do Good prior to the execution of the Separation Agreement.

Se. Anesthesiology Consultants, Pllc v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Hosp. Auth.

2018 NCBC 60 · North Carolina Business Court · Jun 22, 2018

Plaintiffs also established a website, www.yourcriticalmoment.com, to facilitate its ad campaign. (Berger Aff. ¶ 13, Exs. E–G.) 59. … Atrium’s argument that the SEA physicians were not employees of SEA is, therefore, unavailing as the parties clearly understood and intended the non-solicitation provision to prohibit solicitation of Plaintiffs’ physicians

Epes Logistics Servs., Inc. v. De Piante

2025 NCBC 10 · North Carolina Business Court · Mar 11, 2025

Thereafter, Epes obtained the OTI License, which listed De Piante as both the Qualifying Individual of Epes and Vice President. (J.A. 0863.) … [is] inadequate to establish [an at-will employee’s] obligations as fiduciary in nature”). 105.

Heinitsh v. Wachovia Bank

2007 NCBC 19 · North Carolina Business Court · Jun 11, 2007

) {22} With the closing of the estate, Wachovia was able to establish the Marital Trust as contemplated by Reg., Sr.’s will. … For tax reasons, Wachovia established two trusts—a Qualifying Terminable Interest Property trust and a Nonqualifying Terminable Interest Property trust (collectively “the Trusts”).