 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| AARP v. Am. Family Prepaid Legal Corp., 06 CVS 10216,
NORTH CAROLINA SUPERIOR COURT, GUILFORD COUNTY, February 23, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Insurance company's motion to quash a subpoena was granted because the existence of personal jurisdiction over the non-party foreign insurance company, standing alone, did not extend the court's subpoena power under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, N.C. R. Civ. P. 45 to the insurance company for purposes of a deposition or the production of documents.
|
|||||
| Kornegay v. Aspen Asset Group, LLC, 04 CVS 22242,
NORTH CAROLINA SUPERIOR COURT, MECKLENBURG COUNTY, February 28, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When plaintiff offered no good reason for his delay in disclosing an expert under N.C. R. Civ. P. 26, the court declined to exclude the expert under N.C. R. Civ. P. 37, as doing so might lead plaintiff to dismiss and refile his already stale case. Instead, plaintiff was to pay deposition costs and attorney's fees and was limited in his discovery.
|
|||||
| Piedmont Venture Partners., L.P. v. Deloitte & Touche, L.P.P., 06 CVS 10418,
NORTH CAROLINA SUPERIOR COURT, MECKLENBURG COUNTY, March 5, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A limited partner purporting to have been chosen as liquidator of two limited partnerships solely to sue their former auditor was properly chosen, but he could not limit his responsibilities to pursuing such litigation, under N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 59-803 to -804 (2006) and Del. Code Ann. tit. 6, §§ 17-803 to -804 (2006), so a receiver was appointed.
|
|||||
| Wachovia Capital Partners, LLC v. Frank Harvey Inv. Family L.P., 05 CVS 20568,
NORTH CAROLINA SUPERIOR COURT, MECKLENBURG COUNTY, March 5, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Most of a partnership's counterclaims against investors, officers, a holding company, and a representative were dismissed because the decisions of the holding company's management committee were entitled to the protection of the business judgment rule. However, the partnership adequately pleaded a conversion counterclaim against the company.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
