North Carolina does not recognize the "cardinal change doctrine" in government contract cases.
The Court also dismissed a claim for tortious interference with contract against a consultant who had advised the owner not to pay the Plaintiff for its work on a construction project. The Court found the alleged interference to be justified, even though
N.C. Gen. Stat. §41-23, which repealed the common law Rule Against Perpetuities as well as the Uniform Statutory Rule Against Perpetuities (N.C. Gen. Stat. §41-15) as they apply to trusts created or administered in North Carolina is constitutional.
The prohibition against “perpetuities and monopolies” found at Article I, Section 34 of the North Carolina Constitution
When a Court is considering whether to apply the law of a foreign country, as permitted by Rule 44.1 of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure:
The issue here was whether a Plaintiff located in Winston-Salem which held a state trademark registration was entitled to an injunction against a competing store with a similar name located in Charlotte.
Judge Diaz applied federal Lanham Act principles in deciding whether the Plaintiff had a sufficient market presence in the Charlotte area to warrant
The Business Court held that an individual taxpayer did not have standing to sue over alleged misuse of taxes paid by residents of the City of Roanoke Rapids to build a music entertainment theater, rejecting his arguments that he was entitled to bring suit individually because the losses from the theater would be borne by
The Fourth Circuit today, in the case of In re Bees, reversed the trial court’s imposition of sanctions based on an attorney’s oral statements during a motion hearing. The Court held that Rule 11 does not extend to oral statements except in very limited circumstances.
The court said:
"Rule 11 . . .
The North Carolina Business Court delivered a significant opinion on discovery sanctions today in Azalea Garden Board & Care, Inc. v. Vanhoy, 2009 NCBC 9 (N.C. Super. Ct. March 26, 2009). If you are litigating in the Business Court, you’d better read this one, which emphasizes the duty of lawyers to cooperate with one
The Court granted a Motion opposing the designation of the case, which involved the allegedly fraudulent transfer of assets by a corporate defendant and its sole shareholder, as a mandatory complex business case. The Court ruled that the allegations did not present a material issue related to the law governing corporations. The Court found that
The Court denied an Opposition to Designation of Action as a Mandatory Complex Business case, which was based partly on the argument that the case had been pending for a year before the Notice of Designation was filed.
The Complaint had been amended, however, to state a new claim for constructive fraud. The Court observed
The Fourth Circuit held today that the manner in which manufacturers of pest control products sold their products to consumers did not constitute illegal resale price maintenance. The decision in Valupest.com of Charlotte, Inc. v. Bayer Corp. rejected Plaintiffs’ argument that an antitrust stalwart, United States v. General Electric Co., 272 U.S. 476 (1926)