Case law

Halikierra Cmty. Servs. LLC v. N.C. Dep't of Health & Hum. Servs., 2022 Ncbc 57a

North Carolina Business Court · Sep 27, 2022

Before placing Halikierra on prepayment review, OCPI investigated complaints that Halikierra was billing for services that were not actually provided and employing individuals who were not qualified to deliver PCS. … DHHS 8, 11, 14, 21.) 6 Arguments concerning sovereign immunity were rejected by the Court at the motion to dismiss stage, and thus this Court does not address the issue of State sovereign immunity in this Opinion.

Plasman v. Decca Furniture (Usa), Inc.

2016 NCBC 78 · North Carolina Business Court · Oct 21, 2016

duly chosen and qualified.” … A non-outsider enjoys qualified immunity from liability on a tortious interference claim. Combs v. City Elec. Supply Co., 203 N.C. App. 75, 84, 690 S.E.2d 719, 725 (2010).

R.R. Friction Prods. Corp. v. N.C. Dep't of Revenue

2019 NCBC 12 · North Carolina Business Court · Feb 21, 2019

Railroad Friction Has Failed to Establish That It Is a Public Utility under G.S. § 105-130.4(a)(6). 25. … To qualify as a public utility under G.S. § 105-130.4(a)(6), a corporation must satisfy two requirements.

Bldg. Ctr., Inc. v. Carter Lumber, Inc.

2017 NCBC 83 · North Carolina Business Court · Sep 21, 2017

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. … The privilege to interfere with an at-will contract, however, “is conditional or qualified; that is, it is lost if exercised for a wrong purpose.

Heron Bay Acquisition, LLC v. United Metal Finishing, Inc.

2014 NCBC 15 · North Carolina Business Court · May 7, 2014

The court issues a separate order on those motions. 2 Unless otherwise noted, these facts are uncontested and are established by the record submitted. … App. 724, 729, 421 S.E.2d 631, 634 (1992) (noting that the contract between the parties clearly indicated that certain actions would not constitute waiver).

Lancaster v. Harold K. Jordan & Co.

2014 NCBC 22 · North Carolina Business Court · Jun 5, 2014

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. … Instead, the court relies on the related "Lassiter exception" because it most clearly resolves this issue. See Thompson v. Lassiter, 246 N.C. 34 (1957).

Button v. Level Four Orthotics & Prosthetics, Inc.

2020 NCBC 18 · North Carolina Business Court · Mar 13, 2020

Generally, “non-outsiders often enjoy qualified immunity from liability for inducing their corporation or other entity to breach its contract with an employee.” Lenzer v. Flaherty, 106 N.C. … These injuries are clearly distinct from the injuries sustained by Level Four Inc., meeting the second Barger exception. 100.

Urquhart v. Trenkelbach

2017 NCBC 11 · North Carolina Business Court · Feb 8, 2017

“Plaintiff[s] must first establish that [D]efendants’ conduct was ‘in or affecting commerce’ before the question of unfairness or deception arises.” HAJMM Co. v. … Having found the Amended Complaint deficient, the Court need not address Defendants’ contention that Trenkelbach is a non-outsider entitled to qualified immunity from any tortious-interference claim. C.

Capps v. Blondeau

2015 NCBC 38 · North Carolina Business Court · Mar 5, 2015

Ken Martin and Jack Stancil, the longtime CPAs for Capps, and for Blondeau personally, were qualified to handle tax matters related to creation and operation of the Baker Foundation. … Moreover, the Plaintiffs are entitled to a substantial award of punitive damages based upon the many statutory factors that are clearly present pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1D-35 (see e.g.

Maurer v. Slickedit, Inc.

2005 NCBC 1 · North Carolina Business Court · May 15, 2005

It is duplicative and redundant. {61} Plaintiff’s claim against the corporation is barred by the intracorporate immunity doctrine. … Because defendants Andre and Erica Boisvert are officers and directors of SlickEdit, they are entitled to intracorporate immunity against plaintiff’s conspiracy claim. So is Clark Maurer.

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

2017 NCBC 59 · North Carolina Business Court · Jul 13, 2017

(Arch’s Answer Ex. 1, 64.) 3 The Policy states that “[t]he word ‘insured’ means any person or organization qualifying as such under Section II –Who is An Insured.” … The Court of Appeals has explained its holding in Wilson as follows: “[i]n Wilson, we established the rule, that when ‘plaintiff is neither an insured nor in privity with the insurer . . .

Wortman v. Hutaff

2013 NCBC 50 · North Carolina Business Court · Oct 29, 2013

It is undisputed that Glover was appointed and qualified as Administrator of the Estate in 2007. (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 113, 116.) … Glover’s petitions and motions filed with the Clerk clearly demonstrate that the principal issue to be decided by the Clerk was whether it was in the best interest of the Estate, and therefore Plaintiffs, to commit Estate

Window World of Baton Rouge, LLC v. Window World, Inc.; Window World of St. Louis, Inc. v. Window World, Inc.

2018 NCBC 101 · North Carolina Business Court · Sep 28, 2018

But the converse of this is that even though litigation is already in prospect, there is no work product immunity for documents prepared in the regular course of business rather than for purposes of the litigation … Judge Doughton is familiar with North Carolina law surrounding the attorney-client privilege and the work-product doctrine and is exceptionally well qualified to perform the in camera review ordered herein.

Massey v. City of Charlotte

2000 NCBC 5 · North Carolina Business Court · Apr 17, 2000

While spot zoning is not per se unlawful in North Carolina, the courts have clearly found it invalid in “the absence of a clear showing of reasonable basis.” … In the case sub judice, that issue is not clearly presented because the City concedes it did not follow a quasi-judicial process.

Olds v. Olds

2026 NCBC 58 · North Carolina Business Court · Jun 25, 2026

Carter, 351 N.C. 27 (1999) (holding that the defendant-employee “clearly engaged in buyer-seller relations in a business setting” by selling computer parts and services to his employer through entities he controlled); see … While qualified privilege most often does not operate in the context of motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, where a claimant establishes the existence of the privilege in their pleading they must plead malice

N.C. Acupuncture Licensing Bd. v. N.C. Bd. of Physical Therapy Exam'rs

2017 NCBC 66 · North Carolina Business Court · Aug 2, 2017

The statutory provisions outlined above clearly identify the Rules Review Commission’s role as a gatekeeper in the rulemaking process. … The doctrine clearly applies to limit a plaintiff who seeks judicial relief from an agency action prior to exhausting its administrative remedies. Presnell v.

Nakatsukasa v. Furiex Pharms., Inc.

2015 NCBC 68 · North Carolina Business Court · Jul 1, 2015

Clearly, the class is so numerous that it is impractical to bring all members before the Court. See Pitts v. Am. Sec. Ins. Co., 144 N.C. … RPC 1.5 provides that "[a] lawyer shall not make an agreement for, charge, or collect an illegal or clearly excessive fee or collect a clearly excessive amount for expenses." Id. at 96.

Wheeler v. Wheeler

2018 NCBC 117 · North Carolina Business Court · Nov 15, 2018

A mandatory injunction “will ordinarily be granted only where the injury is immediate, pressing, irreparable, and clearly established.” Id. (citing State Highway & Pub. Works Comm’n. v. … In addition to irreparability, the harm must be “immediate, pressing, . . . and clearly established.” Auto. Dealer Res., 15 N.C. App. at 639, 190 S.E.2d at 732. 38.

Mezcalito Apex, Inc. v. Murillo

2026 NCBC 14 · North Carolina Business Court · Feb 17, 2026

defines confidential information in a way that “tracks the definition of ‘trade secrets’ under North Carolina law”; (ii) provides that the duty to maintain confidentiality remains in effect until the information no longer qualifies … Plaintiff purports to bring Count Four for preliminary and permanent injunction, seeking a Court order enjoining [Defendant] from further actual or threated misappropriation of [Plaintiff’s] trade secrets, clearly

Wilson Realty & Constr., Inc. v. Asheboro-Randolph Board of Realtors

1997 NCBC 1 · North Carolina Business Court · Sep 30, 1997

Because of the potential impact of their decisions, neither the organization nor individuals acting on its behalf are entitled to absolute immunity from suit. … {43} The affidavit of Charles Grimes was also offered to defeat summary judgment and establish bias of the 1994 Ethics Hearing Panel. It is offered to establish statements made by Mr.