 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Armstrong v. Droessler, NO. COA05-617,
COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA, June 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When the trial court denied a father's motion to modify child support under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 50-13.7(a), remand was required because without a specific finding as to the father's income at the time of the hearing, the issue of whether his income had been involuntarily decreased could not be resolved.
|
|||||
| Badillo v. Cunningham, NO. COA05-1252,
COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA, June 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Dismissal of suit under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, N.C. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2) and (d) (2005) was affirmed as it could be inferred that trial court considered lesser sanctions as it stated that lesser sanctions were urged by plaintiff and that, given plaintiff's failure to respond to insurer's discovery requests, lesser sanctions were inappropriate.
|
|||||
| Clinard Oil Co. v. Oil Prods. Co., NO. COA05-1087,
COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA, June 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Clough v. Hunsecker, NO. COA05-964,
COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA, June 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| County of Durham v. Daye, NO. COA05-1022,
COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA, June 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Day v. Nordgren, NO. COA05-1317,
COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA, June 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Day v. Rasmussen, NO. COA05-1314,
COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA, June 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment for brother was proper as intent of settlors of a 1987 trust could not be determined from face of agreement, so extrinsic evidence was properly considered to determine settlors' intent. Attorney who drafted 1987 trust stated that settlors intended to allow right to amend or revoke trust agreement after death of either settlor.
|
|||||
| Diehl v. Diehl, NO. COA05-416,
COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA, June 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Findings that parents had difficulty communicating and that mother occasionally had troubles obtaining father's consent for activities did not support custody order abrogating all decision-making authority that father would have enjoyed under award of joint legal custody. Thus, case was remanded for further proceedings on joint legal custody issue.
|
|||||
| Durham Land Owners Ass'n v. County of Durham, NO. COA05-736,
COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA, June 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A county had no statutory authority to impose a "school impact fee" upon new residential construction. It was the county's duty, not that of its employees or officials, to provide schools, and the fees allowed by N.C. Gen. Stat. § 115C-408(b) were the services and duties of county officers or employees performing routine, document-oriented tasks.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
