Case law

Pcs 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

Power Home Solar, LLC v. Sigora Solar, LLC

2021 NCBC 36 · North Carolina Business Court · Jun 18, 2021

The Court notes that the federal pleading standard established in those cases is a different and higher pleading standard than North Carolina’s notice pleading standard, which is applicable here. Fox v. … Power Home argues in response that it “clearly allege[s] throughout the Complaint that Defendants received the benefit of utilizing [Power Home’s] trade secrets and proprietary information through their intentional solicitation

LONG v. ABBOTT LABORATORIES

1999 NCBC 10 · North Carolina Business Court · Jul 30, 1999

) {25} The only class members who will receive a benefit are class members who qualify for assistance at North Carolina community health centers. … As the MDL case established, the underlying substantive claims were meritless, and the settlement reflected that fact.

Time Warner Entm't advance/newhouse P'ship v. Town of Landis, North Carolina

2012 NCBC 48 · North Carolina Business Court · Sep 21, 2012

Declare Defendant’s proposed $18.00 rate unreasonable and either establish a rate in conformance with N.C. [Gen. … Vision Cable was to place permanent identification markers on all attached appliances that would be uniform, clearly visible, and recognizable from the ground. (Pl.’s Trial Ex. 8 ¶ 1b.)

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

2016 NCBC 26 · North Carolina Business Court · Mar 28, 2016

TaiDoc has clearly met its burden. … This “privilege [to interfere] is conditional or qualified; that is, it is lost if exercised for a wrong purpose.

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC v. Ag Ins. sa/nv.

2020 NCBC 47 · North Carolina Business Court · Jun 5, 2020

Indeed, the phrase appears in the “ultimate net loss” definition—a term focused on the calculation of the amount payable for qualifying occurrences rather than the scope of coverage in the first instance—and identifies … unnamed but contemplated sources of legal liability. 12 See Woods, 295 N.C. at 506, 246 S.E.2d at 777 (“If no definition is given, non-technical words are to be given their meaning in ordinary speech, unless the context clearly

Mitchell, Brewer, Richardson, Adams, Burge & Boughman, Pllc v. Brewer

2013 NCBC 14 · North Carolina Business Court · Feb 26, 2013

Clearly, not all post-dissolution efforts by former members can appropriately be considered winding up or liquidating the LLC. … The court concludes that Adams is conversant with law firm accounting, is exceptionally qualified to perform the Accounting and that it is in the best interests of justice and the parties to this matter that he be appointed

STATE Ex Rel. Comm'r Ins. v. CUSTARD

2010 NCBC 6 · North Carolina Business Court · Mar 19, 2010

E&Y’s 2002 report is thorough, comprehensive, and performed by fully qualified professionals. … Neither errors in judgments nor negligence establish bad motive. 26 N.C. Gen. Stat. § 55-8-30.

Gr&s Atlantic Beach, LLC v. Hull

2012 NCBC 52 · North Carolina Business Court · Oct 10, 2012

When the movant makes such a showing, the burden shifts to the nonmovant to present specific facts establishing the presence of a genuine factual dispute for trial. Lowe v. … Healthcare, where Judge Tennille wrote: [Under] the doctrine of the last antecedent, relative and qualifying words, phrases, and clauses ordinarily are to be applied to the word or phrase immediately preceding

Rref Bb Acquisitions, LLC v. Mas Props., LLC

2015 NCBC 58 · North Carolina Business Court · Jun 9, 2015

Whatever past negotiations between Defendants and BB&T for loan extensions may have looked like, the 2012 restructure negotiations clearly were “arms- length.” … (1) Rule for qualified applicant.

Blusky Restoration Contractors, LLC v. Brown

2022 NCBC 63 · North Carolina Business Court · Oct 20, 2022

BluSky Restoration alleges that Brown, as a limited partner, acquired Series B Common Units in BluSky HoldCo and therefore qualified as a Series B Common Member of BluSky Restoration under the terms of the LLC Agreement … “A motion for judgment on the pleadings should not be granted unless the movant clearly establishes that no material issue of fact remains to be resolved and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”

Albright v. Vining-Sparks Secs., Inc.

2019 NCBC 80 · North Carolina Business Court · Dec 31, 2019

In the absence of Tennessee precedent clearly directing otherwise, the Court therefore finds no conclusive legislative intent in Section 61-2-304(f) to establish exclusive jurisdiction in Tennessee courts. See id. … App. at 31, 732 S.E.2d at 618 (stating that an allegation asserting: “[u]pon information and belief, [defendant] has waived immunity for the suit by the purchase of liability insurance[,]” was not an admission “as to the

Medfusion, Inc. v. Allscripts Healthcare Solutions, Inc.

2015 NCBC 31 · North Carolina Business Court · Mar 31, 2015

Specifically, Plaintiff argues the phrase "or other special, incidental, indirect, or consequential damages of any kind" qualifies "loss or damage to revenues, profits, or goodwill" such that those damages are only excluded … Because the "protocols for communicating" system issues are established in the parties' contract, the heart of Plaintiff's fraud claim is Defendant's performance of those contractual obligations. 47.

Gallaher v. Ciszek

2022 NCBC 67 · North Carolina Business Court · Nov 4, 2022

The parties nevertheless appear to agree, and the Court concludes based on the undisputed facts of record, that an NCWHA-qualifying notice did not precede Cape Fear Neo’s 31 January 2019 reduced salary payments to Plaintiffs … Ciszek’s violation of the NCWHA therefore establishes the second element of the instrumentality rule. 86.

State Ex Rel. Jackson v. Mv Realty Pbc, LLC

2026 NCBC 2 · North Carolina Business Court · Jan 16, 2026

; and (b) an administrative fee associated with the performance of the services referenced in subpart (a), but only to the extent that said administrative fee was clearly … In response, Defendants contend that MV Realty does not qualify as a “telephone solicitor” because, as noted above, N.C.G.S. § 75-101(9) defines telephone solicitations as those communications that are made “for the purpose

High Point Bank & Trust Co. v. Sapona Mfg. Co.

2010 NCBC 11 · North Carolina Business Court · Jun 22, 2010

THE PARTIES {4} Plaintiff is the duly appointed and qualified Executor of the Estate of Mrs. Simmons and is currently administering Mrs. Simmons’s estate. {5} Defendant Sapona Manufacturing Company, Inc. … {42} None of the underlying factors which drove the decision in Meiselman are clearly found in this case.

Lee v. McDowell

2022 NCBC 28 · North Carolina Business Court · May 26, 2022

informal action to reduce excessive compensation is protected by the business judgment rule as a matter of law when the undisputed evidence shows that McDowell and Dunn (i) knew Brasser’s and Gentner’s compensation was clearly … Gentner advised Lee that the Company’s audited financial statements were “from our 2013 Qualified Business Valuation filing for the State of North Carolina,” 133 indicating that the statements were rFactr’s, and those

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

2019 NCBC 46 · North Carolina Business Court · Aug 8, 2019

Further, a contract may qualify as an “evidence of indebtedness” even if an “obligation to pay money” arises only upon breach of the contract. See Southland Amusements & Vending, Inc. v. Rourk, 143 N.C. … The Court therefore concludes that expert testimony is required to establish Sears’ standard of care. 219.

Abraham v. Jauregui

2012 NCBC 35 · North Carolina Business Court · Jun 7, 2012

comparables provided by HomeFocus exaggerated the actual value of the lots.24 [19] HomeFocus instructed Best to use specific comparable appraisals so that the lots TRM contracted to sell to Plaintiffs could qualify … However, as discussed below, the facts alleged clearly reflect that Plaintiffs' reliance on the appraisal reports was, at best, indirect.

Rfactr, Inc. v. McDowell

2025 NCBC 64 · North Carolina Business Court · Oct 16, 2025

Brasser] by a couple up in Richmond that has a very clear agenda, and very clearly does not want good things for my family, at all.” Id. … Additionally, the post employs figurative, qualifying, and arguably hyperbolic language. (J.A. 303 (“[Mr. Brasser and Mr.