 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Atkins v. Mortenson, NO. COA06-854,
COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA, June 5, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not abuse its discretion in setting aside an entry of default in a medical malpractice action because good cause existed. Further, the doctor was awarded summary judgment because the patient presented no evidence suggesting that the doctor breached the standard of care nor that such a breach, if it occurred, caused the patient harm.
|
|||||
| Beddard v. McDaniel, NO. COA06-1039,
COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA, June 5, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Insureds were awarded summary judgment against their insurer because they qualified under an endorsement of their insurance policy as "named insureds" for underinsured motorist coverage, and the appellate court could see no reason to make an exception to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 20-279.21(b)(4) and allow an "owned vehicle" exclusion to apply.
|
|||||
| Brown v. Am. Partners Fed. Credit Union, NO. COA06-392,
COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA, June 5, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In an action by members alleging fraud and other causes of action, the trial court erred in ordering a credit union to produce two documents, as the documents were protected by attorney-client privilege, because they were communications with an attorney hired to look into the bankruptcy of an investment company.
|
|||||
| Carter v. Marion, NO. COA06-863,
COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA, June 5, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trial court properly granted a superior court clerk summary judgment on the former deputy clerks' First Amendment claim because political affiliation was an appropriate requirement for deputy clerks given that they served at the pleasure of an elected official and they performed duties on the clerk's behalf.
|
|||||
| Clemmons v. Securitas, Inc., NO. COA06-1346,
COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA, June 5, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Compton v. Maya Lake, L.L.C., NO. COA06-860,
COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA, June 5, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Crandell v. Am. Home Assur. Co., NO. COA06-533,
COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA, June 5, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in finding that an insurer had no duty to defend a psychiatrist in previously filed litigation because at least a mere possibility existed that the psychiatrist's potential liability in that action was covered by the insurer's policy. Consequently, the order was reversed because the insurer had a duty to defend the psychiatrist.
|
|||||
| Curran v. Barefoot, NO. COA06-1102,
COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA, June 5, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Judgment was affirmed insofar as it ordered specific performance of real property as buyers were ready, willing, and able to close on or within reasonable time after scheduled closing date, even though seller's real estate agent was informed that closing date might be delayed. Specific performance of personal property gave buyers complete remedy.
|
|||||
| Dempsey v. Halford, NO. COA06-1379,
COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA, June 5, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trial court improperly denied the emergency services and medical directors summary judgment on a former paramedic's libel and slander claims where he failed to show that they acted with malice in making statements made during his suspension and ultimate dismissal and thus, they were protected by the public official immunity doctrine.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
