The four civil cases decided by the Supreme Court on 15 December 2023 hang together by a focus on minimalism and, in three of them, dissenting opinions by Justice Earls.  Based on the current composition of the Supreme Court, this minimalist approach, with a dissent, may be a harbinger of what to expect from the Supreme Court in the future. D.V. Shah Corp., v. Vroombrands           In D.V. Shah Corp., v. Vroombrands, LLC, et. al., the Supreme Court reversed a grant of…More

It seems obvious that a named plaintiff must be the correct plaintiff in order for it to have standing to move forward with a lawsuit.  But figuring out the identity of the correct plaintiff is not always as easy as it should be, and the implications for timely doing so can mean the difference between a valid claim and a dismissal.  In an opinion issued on 5 September 2023, the Court of Appeals addressed “the dearth of binding precedent” concerning…More

While the Rolling Stones may have believed that time was on their side, today the Court of Appeals reminded prospective appellants that, when faced with a deadline for filing a Notice of Appeal, time is definitely not on their side.  In a published opinion, the Court of Appeals addressed whether a Defendant timely filed a Notice of Appeal. If not, the Court of Appeals lacked jurisdiction and would have to dismiss the appeal.  The Court’s analysis hinged on the intersection…More

In our blog post discussing the Court of Appeals opinions issued February 7, 2023, we addressed two cases explaining how trial courts must have subject matter jurisdiction in order for a plaintiff to access the court.  In its opinions issued February 21, 2023, the Court of Appeals expanded on this theme, focusing this time on how appellants must preserve their right to appeal issues if they want access to the appellate courts.              In Guerra v. Harbor Freight Tools, No. COA22-351,…More

In a series of four opinions issued on July 19, 2022[1], the North Carolina Court of Appeals addressed personal jurisdiction and what constitutes a fundamental public policy of North Carolina.  The four cases, arising in three North Carolina counties, involved a single South Carolina auto finance company and almost twenty different plaintiffs.  Each of the plaintiffs were represented by the same law firm in all four cases, as was the defendant.  Background In each of the cases discussed here, the plaintiffs, all…More