Martin Marietta Corp. v. Wake Stone Corp., 453 S.E.2d 146 (N.C. 1995). · Go Syfert
Search
Martin Marietta Corp. v. Wake Stone Corp., 453 S.E.2d 146 (N.C. 1995). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
14 citation events (8 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Sitelink Software, LLC v. Red Nova Labs, Inc. (ncbizct, 2018-08-20)
Top citers, strongest first. 1 distinct citer. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Sitelink Software, LLC v. Red Nova Labs, Inc. (2×)
N.C. Bus. Ct. · 2018 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See e.g., Martin Marietta Corp. v. Wake Stone Corp., 339 N.C. 602, 603 , 453 S.E.2d 146 , 146–47 (1995) (holding that defamatory and injurious statements are “‘unfair’ within the meaning . . . of [the UDTP]” and may support a 75-1.1 claim); Combs & Assocs., Inc. v. Kennedy, 147 N.C.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Martin Marietta Corporation, Martin Marietta Aggregates, and John F. Long, Jr.
v.
Wake Stone Corporation, and Thomas B. Oxholm
390A93.
Supreme Court of North Carolina.
Feb 10, 1995.
453 S.E.2d 146
Petree Stockton, L.L.P, by Ralph M. Stockton, Jr., Jeffrey C. Howard, and Rodrick J. Enns, for plaintiff-appellees. , McMillan, Kimzey & Smith, by James M. Kimzey and Katherine E. Jean, for defendant-appellants. , Martha A. Geer for the American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina Legal Foundation, amicus curiae.
Orr.
Cited by 7 opinions  |  Published
[*603] PER CURIAM.

Having reviewed the record, briefs and oral arguments of the parties, the Court concludes that the record contains a forecast of evidence from which a jury could find that defendants knowingly, or in reckless disregard of the truth, made and distributed statements which were both false and designed to injure or destroy plaintiffs’ business in Nash County, thereby eliminating competition in that area. Such statements do not enjoy constitutional protection. McDonald v. Smith, 472 U.S. 479, 86 L. Ed. 2d 384 (1985). They are “unfair” within the meaning and intent of N.C.G.S. § 75-1.1 and unlawful under the prohibitions contained in N.C.G.S. § 75-5(3). Accordingly, the Court of Appeals was correct in reversing the trial court’s grant of defendants’ motion for summary judgment on plaintiffs’ unfair or deceptive trade practice claim. The decision of the Court of Appeals is therefore

AFFIRMED.

Justice Orr did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.