 |
|
 |
|
|
Access State and Federal Case Law, plus U.S. Supreme Court cases — for free!
Click on any of the case links below to view the full text of that case — for free — through lexisONE®, a legal research and news service from LexisNexis®. Login is required — registration is free!
While viewing the full text of the case, select from upgrade options to Shepardize® or view the fully-featured case on lexis.com including Core Terms, Shepard's® Signals, Case Summaries, Print Options, and more. lexisONE offers access to comprehensive content and flexible services for faster, more efficient legal research. Review our flexible LexisNexis® subscriptions offered through daily, weekly or monthly research packages.
| N.C. DOT v. County of Durham, NO. COA06-283,
COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA, January 2, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When the state department of transportation filed a condemnation suit against a county, the trial court properly denied the county's motion to dismiss based on sovereign immunity. Because under N.C. Const. art. VII, § 1, a county derived all of its sovereign immunity from the state, its sovereign immunity could not be superior to that of the state.
|
|||||
| Okuma Am. Corp. v. Bowers, NO. COA 06-472,
COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA, January 2, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in ruling that the employer's covenant not to compete was overly broad and unenforceable as a matter of law; covenant's enforceability rested on questions of fact, could not be determined as a matter of law, and the employer's complaint did state a claim for which relief might be granted on some legal theory.
|
|||||
| Outerbridge v. Perdue Farms, Inc., NO. COA06-33,
COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA, January 2, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Industrial Commission's opinion and award was remanded for additional findings of fact, because the Commission determined the existence of plaintiff's disability, but did not determine the extent of plaintiff's disability because it failed to address whether plaintiff was capable of earning the same wages he was earning at the time of his injury.
|
|||||
| Plott v. Bojangle's Rests., Inc., NO. COA05-1690,
COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA, January 2, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: North Carolina Industrial Commission erroneously applied N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-32 because that provision only applied where employer sought to discontinue disability payments, and here employer had denied benefits and matter was in litigation. Thus, even if claimant had accepted employer's job, he was receiving no benefits which could have resumed.
|
|||||
| Qubain v. Granberry, NO. COA06-444,
COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA, January 2, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Red Dirt Props., LLC v. Prime Bldg. Co., NO. COA06-387,
COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA, January 2, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Rentenbach Constructors, Inc. v. CM P'ship, NO. COA06-242,
COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA, January 2, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a bank loaned money to a debtor and filed a financing statement in 1999 and a partnership entered into a factoring agreement with the debtor but did not file a statement until 2003, the bank had a priority lien on the proceeds at issue under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 25-9-322 because it perfected its security interest before the partnership.
|
|||||
| S.F. Holdings of Wilmington, LLC v. Town of Kure Beach, NO. COA06-367,
COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA, January 2, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Sandy Mush Props. v. Rutherford County, NO. COA06-68,
COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA, January 2, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Plaintiffs had a valid building permit because their appeal tolled the statutory time period in which plaintiffs could resume construction under their office building permit. However, the building permit only authorized the construction of an office building; it did not establish a statutory vested right to mine the property.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
