Case law

Alp Sys., Inc. v. Haygood

2021 NCBC 32 · North Carolina Business Court · May 10, 2021

According to ALP, Bolted “clearly knew, or reasonably should have known, that it had acquired and/or used [ALP’s] valuable trade secrets without the express or implied consent of [ALP].” (Am. Compl. ¶ 81.) … As a result of these vague, overbroad restrictions, the Court concludes that the non-compete covenants are unreasonable and unenforceable as a matter of well-established North Carolina law. 42.

In Re Quintiles Transnational Corp. S'holders Litig.

2003 NCBC 11 · North Carolina Business Court · Dec 19, 2003

The auction process was clearly in the best interest of the shareholders as the business of Quintiles was particularly difficult to value. … He also noted that “it is well established that investigation of mismanagement is a proper purpose for a Section 220 books and records inspection.” Id. at n. 75 (quoting Security First Corp. v. U.S. Die Casting & Dev.

Revolutionary Concepts, Inc. v. Clements Walker Pllc

2012 NCBC 14 · North Carolina Business Court · Mar 8, 2012

Application”) pursuant to procedures established by the Patent Cooperation Treaty and corresponding United States law. (Compl. ¶ 24.) … Here, the Complaint clearly alleges that patent rights had been assigned to and were now being asserted by RCI-NV as assignee. (Compl. ¶¶ 1, 10, 11, 32, 39.)

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

2016 NCBC 77 · North Carolina Business Court · Oct 21, 2016

App. at 375, 542 S.E.2d at 692 (“Confidential data regarding operating and pricing policies can also qualify as trade secrets. … This “privilege [to interfere] is conditional or qualified; that is, it is lost if exercised for a wrong purpose.

K&M Collision, LLC v. N.C. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co.

2017 NCBC 107 · North Carolina Business Court · Nov 21, 2017

“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.” … On a Rule 12(c) motion, “[t]he movant is held to a strict standard and must show that no material issue of facts exists and that he is clearly entitled to judgment.” Ragsdale v.

Vitaform, Inc. v. Aeroflow, Inc.

2022 NCBC 65 · North Carolina Business Court · Oct 27, 2022

“[W]hen information alleged to be a trade secret is clearly and easily obtained through a single publication, then the source of the actual knowledge the defendant used is not relevant.” … In TaiDoc, plaintiff took several additional steps to clearly identify the confidential nature of the individual documents at issue in that case, such as “affixing confidentiality labels on documents sent to [defendant],

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

2019 NCBC 74 · North Carolina Business Court · Dec 13, 2019

“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.” … It is well-established that Atrium is subject to the Public Records Act. See Jackson v. Charlotte Mecklenburg Hosp. Auth., 238 N.C.

Egelhof v. Szulik

2008 NCBC 2 · North Carolina Business Court · Feb 4, 2008

Egelhof’s diminutive stake in the litigation would most likely not qualify as making him the “most adequate plaintiff.” … Clearly, no one at the firm was concerned enough to even know how much stock he owned.

Tong v. Dunn Powell v. Dunn

2016 NCBC 49 · North Carolina Business Court · Jul 8, 2016

{11} The Court dismissed Plaintiffs’ aiding-and-abetting claims against ENG and Engineous on March 19, 2012, based on the doctrine of intracorporate immunity, Tong, 2012 NCBC LEXIS 16, at *17–20, and dismissed Tong … Lloyd, which stated that [i]t is a firmly established rule that with certain exceptions, such as in the cases of covenants and indemnity contracts, the occurrence of an act or omission, whether it is

Anderson v. Coastal Communities at Ocean Ridge Plantation, Inc

2011 NCBC 14 · North Carolina Business Court · Jun 3, 2011

allowed Saunders, through TMC and JPA, to control the entire loan process and (c) "pushed through" loan applications submitted by purchasers of Coastal Communities Properties regardless of whether the purchasers were qualified … Secure and Fair Enforcement Mortgage Licensing Act G.S. 53-244.010, et seq.), to inform Plaintiffs about Saunders' selection of JPA as the appraiser, BB&T's decision to use an outside appraiser and BB&T's reliance on "clearly

La Familia Cosmovision, Inc. v. the Inspiration Networks

2014 NCBC 51 · North Carolina Business Court · Oct 20, 2014

Moreover, even if PF intended to effectively assign its rights and obligations under the LOI to LFC, the LOI clearly prohibited such an assignment without Inspiration's written 35 In the First Amendment, the parties … [26] To dismiss the action entirely at this stage would plainly qualify as going "too fast too soon." Sutton v. Duke, 277 N.C. at 108.

Nnn Durham Office Portfolio 1, LLC v. Grubb & Ellis Co.; Nnn Durham Office Portfolio 1, LLC v. Highwoods Realty Ltd. P'ship 2016 Ncbc 93a

North Carolina Business Court · Dec 29, 2016

The promoter, Triple Net, clearly stressed that the TICs were buying securities and investing in reliance on the manager’s efforts. … The PPM clearly disclosed that Duke’s leases would expire and had no renewal provisions, and further clearly disclaimed any warranty that Duke would in fact renew the leases. (PPM 9.)

Mooring Capital Fund, LLC v. Comstock N.C., LLC

2009 NCBC 26 · North Carolina Business Court · Nov 13, 2009

[29] In North Carolina, a member or manager of an LLC enjoys immunity from liability for the obligations of an LLC, although under certain circumstances a member or manager may become personally liable by reason … [81] A receiver may be appointed before judgment on the application of either party when the moving party establishes an apparent right to property which is the subject of the action and is in possession of

Town of Carrboro v. Duke Energy Corp.

2026 NCBC 13 · North Carolina Business Court · Feb 12, 2026

“It is well established that the . . . courts will not adjudicate political questions.” Powell, 395 U.S. at 518. … In support of its argument that the legal framework is well-established, Plaintiff cites a number of trans-boundary nuisance cases.

Fidelity Bank v. N.C. Dep't of Revenue

2013 NCBC 27 · North Carolina Business Court · May 3, 2013

In doing so, the court applies "the standard established by Rule 56." Id. at 576-77. … [27] As to the first requirement, that the income be interest, Petitioner argues that its Market Discount Income qualifies as interest income.

In Re Se. Eye Ctr. (Pending Matters), 2021 Ncbc 27a

North Carolina Business Court · Apr 26, 2021

For example, a trustee may resign if notice is given to all “qualified beneficiaries,” not to every single beneficiary. Id. § 36C-7-705(a)(1). … Additionally, the Trust Agreement clearly and unambiguously establishes other beneficiaries.

State of N.C. v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co.

2025 NCBC 44 · North Carolina Business Court · Aug 7, 2025

First, our State Constitution establishes the office of Attorney General. See N.C. Const. art. III, § 7, cl. 1. (providing that “an Attorney General . . . shall be elected by the qualified votes of the State[.]”) … While the Moving Defendants did not appear to rest on this argument at the Hearing, the Court determines that the General Assembly did not clearly divest the Attorney General of his narrower common law authority through

Intersal, Inc. v. Hamilton

2017 NCBC 95 · North Carolina Business Court · Oct 12, 2017

media, regardless of producing entity, shall bear a time code stamp, and watermark (or bug) of Nautilus and/or [DNCR], as well as a link to [DNCR], [Plaintiff], and Nautilus websites, to be clearly … “On the other hand, if the remedy established by the NCAPA is inadequate, exhaustion is not required.” Id. at 186, 505 S.E.2d at 904.

White v. Hyde

2016 NCBC 72 · North Carolina Business Court · Oct 4, 2016

Here, Plaintiff’s Complaint, liberally construed, states claims against Hyde and the Powells that would qualify as double derivative claims on behalf of Hyde-HP under Delaware law.  50. … Plaintiff’s Complaint does not allege facts sufficient to establish either of the Barger exceptions.

Suggs-Jacobs v. Physicians Weight Loss Ctr. of Am., Inc.

2003 NCBC 8 · North Carolina Business Court · Jan 5, 2003

A special confidence must exist for the Court to establish that this type of relationship was present. Id. … VI. {43} Plaintiff contends that PWLC qualifies as a “health benefit plan” and is subject to North Carolina insurance law. N.C.G.S. § 58-51-37(a).