MARTIN , Chief Justice . Plaintiff CommScope Credit Union seeks damages from defendant Butler & Burke, LLP, the certified public accounting firm that plaintiff hired to conduct annual independent audits of its financial statements. We allowed discretionary review to address whether defendant owed a fiduciary duty to plaintiff and whether plaintiff's claims against defendant are barred by the doctrines of contributory negligence and in pari delicto. I Plaintiff is a North Carolina state-...
EDMUNDS , Justice . Defendant Herbert A. Gray (defendant) owns real property located in Huntersville, North Carolina. Plaintiff Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (plaintiff or Duke) owns an easement allowing construction of and access to its power lines. A portion of defendant's property encroaches on plaintiff's easement and defendant has failed to remove the encroachment upon plaintiff's request. We consider whether plaintiff has a right to eject defendant's encroachment from the easement....
BEASLEY , Justice . This appeal arises out of a compensation and intellectual property dispute between Robert Paul Morris ("plaintiff") and his former employer Scenera Research, LLC and its CEO Ryan Fry (collectively, "defendants"). In 2004, Stanley Fry, defendant Ryan Fry's father, hired plaintiff as Scenera's first employee. The parties did not sign a written employment agreement. They did, however, have several discussions concerning the details of plaintiff's employment. Plaintiff...
EDMUNDS , Justice . The trial court in this case declined to enforce a covenant not to compete, even though the parties expressly agreed in their contract that a court could rewrite overbroad temporal and territorial limitations that would otherwise render the covenant unenforceable. We agree that the trial court correctly refused to amend the covenant. In addition, we conclude that the trial court properly entered summary judgment in defendants' favor on plaintiff's claims for tortious...
JACKSON , Justice . In this case, we consider whether plaintiff Tyki Sakwan Irving may bring an action pursuant to the Tort Claims Act before the North Carolina Industrial Commission (the Commission) to recover for alleged negligence by an employee of a local board of education in the operation of an activity bus transporting students and school staff to an extracurricular event. Because the waiver of governmental immunity provided in the relevant section of the Tort Claims Act does not...
EDMUNDS , Justice . Following the reelection of defendant Daniel Bailey to the office of Sheriff of Mecklenburg County, plaintiff's employment as a deputy sheriff was terminated. In response, plaintiff brought this action, alleging wrongful termination in violation of the North Carolina public policy enunciated in N.C.G.S. 153A-99, and of Article I, Sections 14 and 36 of the North Carolina Constitution. We hold that plaintiff was not a county employee as defined in N.C.G.S. 153A-99. As...
PER CURIAM . For the reasons stated in Young v. Bailey, ___ N.C. ___, ___ S.E.2d ___, 2016 WL 363556 (2016) (355PA14-2), the decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed. AFFIRMED.
PER CURIAM . For the reasons stated in Young v. Bailey, ___ N.C. ___, ___ S.E.2d ___, 2016 WL 363556 (2016) (355PA14-2), plaintiffs' suit under N.C.G.S. 153A-99 fails. In addition, the suit brought by plaintiff Stanley pursuant to the North Carolina Constitution and the United States Constitution fails for the reasons set out in Young v. Bailey. Unlike plaintiff Stanley, however, plaintiff McLaughlin was not a sworn law enforcement officer, and thus Young v. Bailey does not dispose...
MARTIN , Chief Justice . Our founders believed that separating the legislative, executive, and judicial powers of state government was necessary for the preservation of liberty. The Constitution of North Carolina therefore vests each of these powers in a different branch of government and declares that "[t]he legislative, executive, and supreme judicial powers of the State government shall be forever separate and distinct from each other." N.C. Const. art. I, 6. Each branch of government...
ORDER Appeal dismissed ex mero motu by order of the Court in Conference, this the 8th day of December 2016.
ORDER Appeal dismissed ex mero motu by order of the Court in Conference, this the 14th day of December 2016.
ORDER The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 24th of October 2016 by Defendants for Temporary Stay: "Motion Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 8th of December 2016." Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendants on the 24th of October 2016 for Writ of Supersedeas of the judgment of the Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: "Denied by order of the Court in...
ORDER The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 10th of May 2016 by State of NC for Temporary Stay: "Motion Dissolved by order of the Court in conference, this the 8th of December 2016." Upon consideration of the petition filed by State of NC on the 10th of May 2016 for Writ of Supersedes of the judgment of the Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: "Denied by order of the Court in conference,...
The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 10th of May 2016 by Cardinal Innovations Healthcare Solutions, et al. for leave to file Amicus Curiae Brief: "Motion Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference, this the 8th of December 2016."
The following order has been entered on the Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed on the 1st of December 2016 by Plaintiff: "Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 1st of December 2016." Plaintiff shall have up to and including the 6th day of January 2017 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court.
The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 22nd of November 2016 by Defendant to Amend Certificate of Service of Brief: "Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 1st of December 2016."
The following order has been entered on the Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed on the 16th of November 2016 by Plaintiff: "Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 18th of November 2016." Plaintiff shall have up to and including the 16th day of January 2017 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court.
The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 4th of November 2016 by Plaintiff for Withdrawal of Appearance and for Substitution of Counsel: "Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 9th of November 2016."
The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 17th of October 2016 by Defendants to Submit Appellate Filings Under Seal: "Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 19th of October 2016."
