Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
212 results
1.17s
2020 NCBC 87 · North Carolina Business Court · Dec 3, 2020
complaints regarding the quality of Alliance’s product, Quidore falsely represented to Alliance management that he had conducted quality control testing, and the customer was clearly … App. 2009) (“[S]ales talk or ‘puffing’ ordinarily is not sufficient to establish a claim for negligent misrepresentation or fraud.”). 27.
Cited 0 timesPublished2020 NCBC 75 · North Carolina Business Court · Oct 15, 2020
However, the “privilege [to interfere] is conditional or qualified; that is, it is lost if exercised for a wrong purpose. … App. 331, 346, 328 S.E.2d 818, 829 (1985) (“[T]he complaint in an action for malicious interference with contract must clearly allege that the actions of the defendant were the cause of the plaintiff's damages and that
Cited 0 timesPublishedN.C. Dep't of Revenue v. Graybar Elec. Co., Inc.
2019 NCBC 2 · North Carolina Business Court · Jan 9, 2019
A material fact is one that “would constitute or would irrevocably establish any material element of a claim or defense.” Abner Corp. v. City Roofing & Sheetmetal Co., 73 N.C. … While the General Assembly provided a clearly exhaustive definition for “net economic loss,” see N.C. Gen.
Cited 0 timesPublished2022 NCBC 23 · North Carolina Business Court · May 11, 2022
The plaintiff alleged that she was duly qualified to serve as the administrator of the plaintiff’s estate but was unaware that she was likewise required to be appointed in North Carolina as the administrator of the estate … Thus, the Court finds there was clearly a “semblance of [a] reasonable basis” for only suing in Brakebush’s name. See Advanced Magnetics, 106 F.3d at 20 (cleaned up). 37.
Cited 0 timesPublished2016 NCBC 71 · North Carolina Business Court · Sep 26, 2016
The moving party bears “the burden of clearly establishing lack of a triable issue” to the trial court and may meet this burden by “proving an essential element of the opposing party’s claim does not exist, cannot be proven … Defendant argues that Plaintiff does not qualify as a “present creditor” under the statute because she has alleged that “she became a creditor of Dr.
Cited 0 timesPublishedRichardson v. Utili-Serve, LLC
2020 NCBC 83 · North Carolina Business Court · Nov 17, 2020
By statute, an LLC member has a qualified right to inspect and copy the company’s records. See N.C.G.S. § 57D-3-04(a). An operating agreement may expand the members’ inspection rights but cannot diminish them. … Because the Richardsons seek a mandatory preliminary injunction, their burden is heightened: the case must be “urgent”; the right must be “clear”; and the injury must be “immediate, pressing, irreparable, and clearly established
Cited 0 timesPublished2020 NCBC 92 · North Carolina Business Court · Dec 18, 2020
While “[i]t is a well established principle that an express contract precludes an implied contract with reference to the same matter[,]” Vetco Concrete Co. v. … Those with a legitimate business interest “enjoy qualified immunity from liability for inducing their corporation or other entity to breach its contract with an employee.” Barker v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 136 N.C.
Cited 0 timesPublishedCampbell Oil Co. v. Amerigas Propane, Lp
2016 NCBC 5 · North Carolina Business Court · Jan 15, 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 (2011) (quoting N.C. Nat'l Bank v. … Campbell clearly received the vast majority of the bargained-for consideration.
Cited 0 timesPublishedBarnett v. Bp Prods. N. Am., Inc..
2006 NCBC 9 · North Carolina Business Court · Jun 30, 2006
These statements are constitutionally protected “petitioning activity” shielded from civil liability by the First Amendment right to petition to government and the so-called Noerr-Pennington immunity doctrine. … Trials 1 § 103. [9] In the report, GMA noted that its opinions as to the likelihood that the Ballard Site is the source of the Broad Creek contamination needed to be “better qualified and quantified.”
Cited 0 timesPublishedPhilip A.R. Staton v. Jerri Russell
2001 NCBC 05 · North Carolina Business Court · May 31, 2001
[FN1] {93} Philip’s counsel clearly put PIPM on notice that Philip was contesting the creation of the CLTs and the Foundation. That fact was true. Legal grounds for Philip’s challenge existed. … Third, as indicated below, Inge had a qualified right to interfere with PIPM’s contract with the Foundation even if the settlement agreement were invalid.
Cited 1 timesPublished2010 NCBC 7 · North Carolina Business Court · Apr 13, 2010
of the fiduciary relationship and position of trust that he had established with [Capps]” (emphasis added). … Capps’ Claims against the moving Defendants clearly grow out of her receiving securities advice and services from the Defendants, and such services involving securities brokerage agreements are contracts “involving” interstate
Cited 4 timesPublished2026 NCBC 59 · North Carolina Business Court · Jun 25, 2026
That leaves Tony and CapitalNexus, whose opening brief does not clearly state their grounds for moving to dismiss this claim. … They also ask the Court to issue a declaration that establishes their capital accounts and confirms their ongoing right to any profits from Charlotte Harris. 109.
Cited 0 timesPublished2006 NCBC 1 · North Carolina Business Court · Feb 3, 2005
Maurer failed to establish that she reasonably relied and acted on that misrepresentation. … She has not established any damages or reasonable reliance.
Cited 3 timesPublished2021 NCBC 70 · North Carolina Business Court · Nov 1, 2021
Thus, Brakebush must establish that it was properly assigned the right by Raeford to collect the proceeds under each of the Excess Policies in order to establish standing for its declaratory judgment and breach of contract … Although one can argue that a provision that limits the right of assignment favors the insurer because it takes away a right the insured would otherwise possess, one can also argue that such a provision does not qualify
Cited 0 timesPublishedKoch Measurement Devices, Inc. v. Armke
2015 NCBC 42 · North Carolina Business Court · May 1, 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 (2011) (quoting N.C. Nat'l Bank v. … In order for information to qualify as a trade secret, G.S. § 66-152(3)(b) requires that the information be "the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its security."
Cited 0 timesPublished2022 NCBC 70 · North Carolina Business Court · Nov 14, 2022
Kelly represented that he was a qualified and sophisticated investor, (see, e.g., Kelly Dep. 86:1–86:5; 117:11–117:16), and that he understood the risk involved with the investments, (see, e.g., Kelly Dep. 198:17–198:22 … Siskey is listed in the packet as a principal of the Company, and the packet clearly discloses that he “has been the subject of various legal and administrative proceedings, none of which are (sic) considered to be material
Cited 0 timesPublishedBognc, LLC v. Cornelius Nc Self-Storage LLC
2013 NCBC 26 · North Carolina Business Court · May 1, 2013
And, as guarantors on the Note, Plaintiffs assert that they qualify as creditors under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 26-3.1. … An indemnity provision in a contract would clearly give rise to an indemnification claim under the first basis.
Cited 4 timesPublishedBuckley LLP v. Series 1 of Oxford Ins. Co. Nc LLC
2020 NCBC 81 · North Carolina Business Court · Nov 9, 2020
,’ is not a privilege, but a ‘qualified immunity.’ ” Evans, 142 N.C. … As is the case with attorney-client privilege, “[t]he party asserting work product protection bears the burden of proof of establishing entitlement to it.” Suggs v.
Cited 2 timesPublished2022 NCBC 5 · North Carolina Business Court · Feb 2, 2022
The plaintiff bears the burden of establishing subject matter jurisdiction. See Harper v. City of Asheville, 160 N.C. App. 209, 217 (2003). … But this trustee appointment does not make Quint Brett’s fiduciary as to all matters, including with respect to their roles as minority members of R&S, and therefore does not qualify as a “special duty” that would provide
Cited 0 timesPublishedPcs Phosphate Co. v. Jacobs Eng'g Grp., Inc.
2026 NCBC 21 · North Carolina Business Court · Mar 11, 2026
Plaintiffs assert that PCS Phosphate issued these purchase orders to Jacobs only after Jacobs represented to “PCS” on 15 August 2019 that Jacobs had a “‘highly qualified project team’ to provide ‘complete in-house turnkey … In this case, Jacobs’s name is “Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc.,” and Plaintiffs clearly allege that (regardless of whether via the Agreement or the purchase orders) they engaged Jacobs “as the engineer for the AHF Plant
Cited 0 timesPublished
Ask Donna