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 §41-23, which repealed the common law Rule Against Perpetuities as well as the Uniform Statutory Rule Against Perpetuities (N.C. Gen.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
http://www.wvbusinesslitigationblog.com/
Continue Reading West Virginia Business Litigation
The North Carolina Court of Appeals ruled yesterday that a mediator doesn’t have the authority to excuse a party from attendance at a mediated settlement conference, in the absence of approval of either all the parties or of the Senior Resident Superior Court Judge.
The issue arose in Perry v. GRP Financial Services Corp.
The adequacy of the consideration for a covenant not to compete entered into after the commencement of employment was the issue in Hejl v. Hood, Hargett, & Associates, Inc., decided by the Court of Appeals today.
In Hejl, the employer dealt with the consideration requirement by paying Hejl $500 to sign the non-compete. Hejl
I’ve been writing this blog for a year now. Thanks to all of you have been reading it, and thanks especially for the nice comments I’ve gotten from many of you.
Today is also another birthday in our house, the eighteenth birthday of my daughter Maddie. We’ll have cake for Maddie later, but not the
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 . . .
Whether the departure of three partners from a law firm LLC was a withdrawal or a dissolution of the LLC was the issue in Mitchell, Brewer, Richardson, Adams, Burge & Boughman, PLLC v. Brewer, 2009 NCBC 10 (N.C. Super. Ct. March 26, 2009), decided today by the North Carolina Business Court.
The characterization