 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Nello L. Teer Co. v. Jones Bros., NO. COA06-340,
COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA, March 20, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because interlocutory order denying stay affected substantial right, it was appealable. Because N.C. Gen. Stat. § 136-29 was incorporated in road contract, requiring that all claims be submitted to available administrative remedies, stay pending the exhaustion of administrative process as to claim arising from contract should have been granted.
|
|||||
| Parker v. Glosson, NO. COA06-740,
COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA, March 20, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Buyer's breach of contract case was properly dismissed because, although seller of the real estate in dispute had signed the contract, a second person, also named as a selling party by the agreement, did not sign it. Because second person had not signed, agreement was not "fully executed" and, therefore, by its own terms, no contract was formed.
|
|||||
| Pers. Earth Movers, Inc. v. Thomas, NO. COA06-816,
COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA, March 20, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellate court dismissed a property owner's appeal because, due to very substantial violations of N.C. R. App. P. 28, 10, and 9 regarding the contents of the owner's appellate brief and the record on appeal, the court's ability to comprehend the case and the issues involved was impaired.
|
|||||
| Pers. Props., LLC v. Combined Therapy Specialties of Asheville, Inc., NO. COA06-660,
COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA, March 20, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Revels v. Miss Am. Org., NO. COA06-477,
COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA, March 20, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: There was insufficient evidence to support a conclusion that pageant contestant was an intended beneficiary under a franchise agreement between the national pageant organization and the state organization. Contestant was not designated as a beneficiary, and there was no evidence that the franchise agreement was executed for her direct benefit.
|
|||||
| Shaw v. Shaw, NO. COA05-1644,
COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA, March 20, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Shen v. Charlotte Univ. Hilton Hotel, NO. COA06-828,
COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA, March 20, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Sitzman v. Gov't Emples. Ins. Co., NO. COA06-342,
COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA, March 20, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment for a bicyclist was reversed as the excess clauses in insurer two's and insurer three's policies were not mutually repugnant since they could be read harmoniously as determining that insurer two provided primary UIM coverage.
|
|||||
| State v. Badders, NO. COA06-603,
COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA, March 20, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
