This is the first of several intended posts on the so far unexamined “Orders of Significance” handed down by the NC Business Court. This one focuses on several Orders from Chief Judge Bledsoe on whether a case was properly designated to the Court. It is embarrassingly long, sorry.
Intellectual Property Cases
A handful of these
If you ever look at the Business Court’s website, you’ve noticed that the Court added late last year a new category of rulings, which it has dubbed “Orders of Significance.” There are 118 of these Orders, stretching back ten years, to 2010.
The Court is statutorily mandated to publicly post a number of its rulings,
I know that you haven’t heard from me in a while. I’m sorry, and I feel guilty. You’ve undoubtedly noticed that a gaggle of ten lawyers at Fox Rothschild have started a competing Business Court blog, called It’s Just Business
State law antitrust claims in North Carolina seem to go together with unfair and deceptive trade practices claims (Chapter 75 claims) like peanut butter and jelly. Section 75-2 of the General Statutes says that “any act, contract, combination in the form of trust, or conspiracy in restraint of trade or commerce which violates the
Judge Robinson boldly went where no North Carolina Judge writing published Opinions had gone before last month in the case of Wheeler v. Wheeler, 2018NCBC117. The subject was a corporate officer’s right to the advancement of legal fees incurred in defending against a lawsuit.
Judge Robinson noted that there was only “one case
The NC Business Court delivered a full Opinion last week on attorney-client privilege in Technetics Group Daytona, Inc. v. N2 Biomedical, LLC, 2018 NCBC 115. It’s on the subject of the scope of attorney-client privilege accorded to corporate clients.
That a corporation is entitled to the protection of the attorney-client privilege is “generally
Having a client required to arbitrate a case — even though that client never signed off on an arbitration provision — is nothing new. Judge Conrad dealt with that situation late last month in Charlotte Student Housing DST v. Choate Construction Co., 2018 NCBC 88, where he said:
Because arbitration is a matter
It is one of the most frustrating things you can have happen after concluding a successful deposition. The witness backtracks on all the substantive admissions she has made during her testimony.
Can she really do that? Well, yes. Rule 30(e) of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure says that the deponent can review her
North Carolina’s Unfair And Deceptive Trade Practices Act (G.S. sec. 75-1.1) carries with it the heady possibility of triple damages and attorneys fees. So nearly every Plaintiff’s lawyer routinely includes a Chapter 75 claim in his or her Complaint.
But last week, in Brewster v. Powell Bail Bonding, Inc, 2018 NCBC