 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Agbemavor v. Keteku, NO. COA05-1213,
COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA, May 16, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment divorce was vacated because conclusory finding was made that wife had been properly served and that trial court had jurisdiction over her, without findings under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, N.C. R. Civ. P. 52(a)(2) (2005) to support conclusions. No findings were made as to use of service by publication by husband or his due diligence.
|
|||||
| Antonelli v. ECR of N.C., Inc., NO. COA05-1092,
COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA, May 16, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Berry v. Holiday Inn Select, NO. COA05-612,
COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA, May 16, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Bowen v. Parker, NO. COA05-1340,
COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA, May 16, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Conner Bros. Mach. Co. v. Rogers, NO. COA05-1116,
COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA, May 16, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A preliminary injunction against defendants was vacated in plaintiff's civil action because no summons was issued within five days after the complaint was filed as required by N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, N.C. R. Civ. P. 4(a). The action had therefore abated and was deemed never to have commenced, and the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction.
|
|||||
| Correa v. Kmart Corp., NO. COA05-926,
COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA, May 16, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Gibbs v. Mayo, NO. COA05-796,
COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA, May 16, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Gibbs v. Mayo, NO. COA05-921,
COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA, May 16, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Gilreath v. N.C. HHS, NO. COA05-940,
COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA, May 16, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in granting summary judgment to an employer as statements made by affiants establishing an employee's pay rate were hearsay under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, N.C. R. Evid. 801(c) and were inadmissible under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, N.C. R. Civ. P. 56(e). Therefore, a genuine issue of material fact existed as to the employee's pay rate.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
