 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Akers v. City of Mt. Airy, NO. COA05-140,
COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA, February 7, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where the owners appealed the order of the trial court remanding the annexation ordinance to the City of Mount Airy for amendment, the order was interlocutory, as further proceedings were required before a final judgment was entered. Immediate review of the order was not available since the order did not deprive the owners of a substantial right.
|
|||||
| Burrow Farms v. Culler, NO. COA05-317,
COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA, February 7, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| City of Charlotte v. Long, NO. COA05-283,
COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA, February 7, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Owners of property were not entitled to additional compensation for a city's installation of a new septic system after two easements rendered their old one inoperable since this installation was not part of the improvement project. The fair market value under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 136-112(1) (2005) did not include the installation of the new system.
|
|||||
| Clark v. Sanger Clinic, P.A., NO. COA05-705,
COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA, February 7, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Croom v. Humphrey, NO. COA05-318,
COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA, February 7, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Employee did not violate N.C. Gen. Stat. § 20-150(d) by attempting to pass decedent's vehicle where centerline was broken yellow line. Because road marking decisions had been delegated to North Carolina Department of Transportation, appellate court refused to find that § 20-150(d) prohibited passing where the Department had allowed it.
|
|||||
| Dawbarn v. Dawbarn, NO. COA05-364,
COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA, February 7, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A postnuptial agreement did not violate N.C. Gen. Stat. § 52-10(a) (2005) based on public policy because it did not give either party an incentive to end the marriage where properties were immediately conveyed to a wife to encourage a husband, who had engaged in an affair, to stay and work on the marriage.
|
|||||
| East Mkt. St. Square, Inc. v. Tycorp Pizza IV, Inc., NO. COA05-212,
COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA, February 7, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An owner was individually liable for breach of a lease by a corporation due to a decision to pierce the corporate veil since the four elements of the instrumentality test were satisfied. The corporation had inadequate operating funds, the owner had complete control, there was no reason for the formation, and there was a commingling of funds.
|
|||||
| Farrell v. Transylvania County Bd. of Educ., NO. COA05-882,
COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA, February 7, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in denying a school official's motion to dismiss parents' claims for punitive damages against her in her individual capacity, under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1D-15(a), as she was entitled to public official immunity for negligence claims, under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 115C-287.1(a)(3), and qualified immunity for 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983 claims.
|
|||||
| Foreclosure of a Deed of Trust v. Branch Banking & Trust Co., NO. COA05-7,
COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA, February 7, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Judgment in a foreclosure proceeding was affirmed as the mortgagees were not deprived of a fundamental right to select counsel. Further, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion by the mortgagees' counsel for limited admission or in imposing sanctions for the mortgagees' failure to comply with properly requested discovery.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
