direct claim in North Carolina

2025App. 107 (2024), arguing that “[i]f the plaintiffs in Alamance were allowed to proceed in litigation intended to use the Monument Protection Act as justification for removing a monument from the grounds of a county courthouse, it logically follows” that plaintiffs should have an equal opportunity to do so to prevent the removal of a memorial. “[I]n the absence of an adequate state remedy, one whose state constitutional rights have been abridged has a direct claim against the State under our Constitution.” Corum v. Univ. of N. Carolina Through Bd. of Governors, 330 N.C. 761, 782 (1992). “[T]he

2025App. 107 (2024), arguing that “[i]f the plaintiffs in Alamance were allowed to proceed in litigation intended to use the Monument Protection Act as justification for removing a monument from the grounds of a county courthouse, it logically follows” that plaintiffs should have an equal opportunity to do so to prevent the removal of a memorial. “[I]n the absence of an adequate state remedy, one whose state constitutional rights have been abridged has a direct claim against the State under our Constitution.” Corum v. Univ. of N. Carolina Through Bd. of Governors, 330 N.C. 761, 782 (1992). “[T]he

2018Bd. of Educ. , 363 N.C. 334 , 338, 678 S.E.2d 351 , 354 (2009) ("This Court could hardly have been clearer in its holding in Corum [ v. University of North Carolina , 330 N.C. 761 , 413 S.E.2d 276 (1992) ]: '[I]n the absence of an adequate state remedy, one whose state constitutional rights have been abridged has a direct claim against the State under our Constitution.' Id . at 782, 413 S.E.2d at 289 .").

2018Bd. of Educ. , 363 N.C. 334 , 338, 678 S.E.2d 351 , 354 (2009) ("This Court could hardly have been clearer in its holding in Corum [ v. University of North Carolina , 330 N.C. 761 , 413 S.E.2d 276 (1992) ]: '[I]n the absence of an adequate state remedy, one whose state constitutional rights have been abridged has a direct claim against the State under our Constitution.' Id . at 782, 413 S.E.2d at 289 .").

2016See *64 Corum v. Univ. of N.C. , 330 N.C. 761 , 782, 413 S.E.2d 276 , 289 ("[I]n the absence of an adequate state remedy, one whose state constitutional rights have been abridged has a direct claim against the State under our Constitution."), reh'g denied , 331 N.C. 558 , 418 S.E.2d 664 , cert. denied , 506 U.S. 985 , 113 S.Ct. 493 , 121 L.Ed.2d 431 (1992) ; *525 Midgett v. N.C.

2016See *64 Corum v. Univ. of N.C. , 330 N.C. 761 , 782, 413 S.E.2d 276 , 289 ("[I]n the absence of an adequate state remedy, one whose state constitutional rights have been abridged has a direct claim against the State under our Constitution."), reh'g denied , 331 N.C. 558 , 418 S.E.2d 664 , cert. denied , 506 U.S. 985 , 113 S.Ct. 493 , 121 L.Ed.2d 431 (1992) ; *525 Midgett v. N.C.

2016See *64 Corum v. Univ. of N.C. , 330 N.C. 761 , 782, 413 S.E.2d 276 , 289 ("[I]n the absence of an adequate state remedy, one whose state constitutional rights have been abridged has a direct claim against the State under our Constitution."), reh'g denied , 331 N.C. 558 , 418 S.E.2d 664 , cert. denied , 506 U.S. 985 , 113 S.Ct. 493 , 121 L.Ed.2d 431 (1992) ; *525 Midgett v. N.C.

2011See Craig, 363 N.C. at 338 , 678 S.E.2d at 354 (stating that “[i]n the absence of an adequate state remedy, one whose state constitutional rights have been abridged has a direct claim against the State under our Constitution.” (quoting Corum v. University of North Carolina Through Bd. of Governors, *266 330 N.C. 761, 782 , 413 S.E.2d 276, 289 , cert. denied, 506 U.S. 985 , 121 L.

2022The law permits a shareholder to bring a direct claim: “(1) when there is a special duty between the wrongdoer and the shareholder; and (2) when the shareholder suffered an injury separate and distinct from the injury suffered by the corporation and the other shareholders.” Id.

2019Here, Graham, Ann, and Jim argue that Bert III and Terry lack standing to assert a direct claim for breach of fiduciary duty, relying on the general rule “that shareholders cannot pursue individual causes of action against third parties for wrongs or injuries to the corporation that result in the diminution or destruction of the value of their stock.” Barger v. McCoy Hillard & Parks, 346 N.C. 650, 658 , 488 S.E.2d 215, 219 (1997).

2022See Norman, 140 N.C.

2018App. 390 , 537 S.E.2d 248 (2000), supports Plaintiff’s ability to bring a direct claim for breach of fiduciary duty against Gideon as director and chief executive officer of Johnston Properties.

2018“To assert a direct constitutional claim . . . for violation of procedural due process rights, a plaintiff must allege that no adequate remedy exists to provide relief for the injury.” Copper v. Denlinger, 363 N.C. 784, 788 , 688 S.E.2d 426, 428 (2010) (citing Corum v. Univ. of N.C., 330 N.C. 761, 782 , 413 S.E.2d 276, 289 (1992) (“Therefore, in the absence of an adequate state remedy, one whose state constitutional rights have been abridged has a direct claim against the State under our Constitution.”)); see also Frank v. Savage, 205 N.C.

2018“To assert a direct constitutional claim . . . for violation of procedural due process rights, a plaintiff must allege that no adequate remedy exists to provide relief for the injury.” Copper v. Denlinger, 363 N.C. 784, 788 , 688 S.E.2d 426, 428 (2010) (citing Corum v. Univ. of N.C., 330 N.C. 761, 782 , 413 S.E.2d 276, 289 (1992) (“Therefore, in the absence of an adequate state remedy, one whose state constitutional rights have been abridged has a direct claim against the State under our Constitution.”)); see also Frank v. Savage, 205 N.C.

2018Thus, although this case is the first time that this Court has considered whether voting power dilution is a direct claim, we agree with the relevant reasoning of the Delaware courts that we have discussed, and hold that plaintiff has pleaded "a personal injury." See Green , 367 N.C. at 142 , 749 S.E.2d at 268 .

2018Thus, although this case is the first time that this Court has considered whether voting power dilution is a direct claim, we agree with the relevant reasoning of the Delaware courts that we have discussed, and hold that plaintiff has pleaded "a personal injury." See Green , 367 N.C. at 142 , 749 S.E.2d at 268 .

2021Therefore, the common law, which provides a remedy for every wrong, will furnish the appropriate action for the adequate redress of a violation of that right.” (citation omitted)); see also Craig, 363 N.C. at 338–39; Taylor v. Wake County, 258 N.C.

2018App. 183, 191 , 695 S.E.2d 509, 514 (2010) (noting that “[t]his principle holds for both state and federal due process claims” (citations omitted)). 137. “[T]he North Carolina Supreme Court’s definition of adequacy is twofold: (1) that the remedy addresses the alleged constitutional injury and (2) that the remedy provides the plaintiff an opportunity to ‘enter the courthouse doors[.]’” Taylor v. Wake Cty., 811 S.E.2d 648, 654 (N.C.

2020GREENFIELD Opinion of the Court charge.” State v. Juarez, 369 N.C. 351, 354 , 794 S.E.2d 293, 297 (2016) (citing State v. Richardson, 341 N.C. 658 , 668–69, 462 S.E.2d 492, 499 (1995)).

2020GREENFIELD Opinion of the Court charge.” State v. Juarez, 369 N.C. 351, 354 , 794 S.E.2d 293, 297 (2016) (citing State v. Richardson, 341 N.C. 658 , 668–69, 462 S.E.2d 492, 499 (1995)).

2020Utilities Commission v. Public Staff, 333 N.C. 195, 202 , 424 S.E.2d 133, 137 (1993) (Carolina Trace).

2020Utilities Commission v. Public Staff, 333 N.C. 195, 202 , 424 S.E.2d 133, 137 (1993) (Carolina Trace).

2020GREENFIELD Opinion of the Court charge.” State v. Juarez, 369 N.C. 351, 354 , 794 S.E.2d 293, 297 (2016) (citing State v. Richardson, 341 N.C. 658 , 668–69, 462 S.E.2d 492, 499 (1995)).

2020GREENFIELD Opinion of the Court charge.” State v. Juarez, 369 N.C. 351, 354 , 794 S.E.2d 293, 297 (2016) (citing State v. Richardson, 341 N.C. 658 , 668–69, 462 S.E.2d 492, 499 (1995)).

2016See *64 Corum v. Univ. of N.C. , 330 N.C. 761 , 782, 413 S.E.2d 276 , 289 ("[I]n the absence of an adequate state remedy, one whose state constitutional rights have been abridged has a direct claim against the State under our Constitution."), reh'g denied , 331 N.C. 558 , 418 S.E.2d 664 , cert. denied , 506 U.S. 985 , 113 S.Ct. 493 , 121 L.Ed.2d 431 (1992) ; *525 Midgett v. N.C.

2016See *64 Corum v. Univ. of N.C. , 330 N.C. 761 , 782, 413 S.E.2d 276 , 289 ("[I]n the absence of an adequate state remedy, one whose state constitutional rights have been abridged has a direct claim against the State under our Constitution."), reh'g denied , 331 N.C. 558 , 418 S.E.2d 664 , cert. denied , 506 U.S. 985 , 113 S.Ct. 493 , 121 L.Ed.2d 431 (1992) ; *525 Midgett v. N.C.

2022Swain v. Elfland, 145 N.C.

2004App. 383, 386 , 550 S.E.2d 530, 533 (2001) (citations omitted). *58 In Corum v. University of North Carolina, our Supreme Court held that one whose state constitutional rights have been abridged has a direct claim under the appropriate constitutional provision. 330 N.C. 761, 782 , 413 S.E.2d 276, 289 (1992).

2018State Highway Comm'n , 260 N.C. 241 , 132 S.E.2d 599 (1963), overruled on other grounds by Lea Co. v. N.C.

2018State Highway Comm'n , 260 N.C. 241 , 132 S.E.2d 599 (1963), overruled on other grounds by Lea Co. v. N.C.

2025The Business Court reasoned, “Not only is Holdings accused jointly with Vojnovic, Operating, and Franchising in this allegation, but [plaintiff]’s allegation is also plainly conclusory and lacks any supporting facts.” To support its conclusion that the direct claim against defendant Holdings for tortious interference must be dismissed, the Business Court relied on precedent from the Court of Appeals, Radcliffe v. Avenel Homeowners Ass’n, 248 N.C.

2018Morgan Chase & Co. S'holder Litig. , 906 A.2d 808 , 818 (Del.

2018Morgan Chase & Co. S’holder Litig., 906 A.2d 808, 818 (Del.

2018“To assert a direct constitutional claim . . . for violation of procedural due process rights, a plaintiff must allege that no adequate remedy exists to provide relief for the injury.” Copper v. Denlinger, 363 N.C. 784, 788 , 688 S.E.2d 426, 428 (2010) (citing Corum v. Univ. of N.C., 330 N.C. 761, 782 , 413 S.E.2d 276, 289 (1992) (“Therefore, in the absence of an adequate state remedy, one whose state constitutional rights have been abridged has a direct claim against the State under our Constitution.”)); see also Frank v. Savage, 205 N.C.

2018App. 183, 191 , 695 S.E.2d 509, 514 (2010) (noting that “[t]his principle holds for both state and federal due process claims” (citations omitted)). 137. “[T]he North Carolina Supreme Court’s definition of adequacy is twofold: (1) that the remedy addresses the alleged constitutional injury and (2) that the remedy provides the plaintiff an opportunity to ‘enter the courthouse doors[.]’” Taylor v. Wake Cty., 811 S.E.2d 648, 654 (N.C.

2018In Tooley v. Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette, Inc. , the Supreme Court of Delaware held that whether an action is direct or derivative is determined by "(1) who suffered the alleged harm (the corporation or the suing stockholders, individually); and (2) who would receive the benefit of any recovery or other remedy (the corporation or the stockholders, individually)[.]" 845 A.2d 1031 , 1033 (Del. 2004) (en banc).

2018In Tooley v. Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette, Inc., the Supreme Court of Delaware held that whether an action is direct or derivative is determined by “(1) who suffered the alleged harm (the corporation or the suing stockholders, individually); and (2) who would receive the benefit of any recovery or other remedy (the corporation or the stockholders, individually)[.]” 845 A.2d 1031, 1033 (Del. 2004) (en banc).

2018See Dawson, 144 N.C.

2018Id. at ----, 796 S.E.2d at 63-64 (first citing Corum v. Univ. of N.C., 330 N.C. 761 , 782, 413 S.E.2d 276 , 289, cert. denied, 506 U.S. 985 , 113 S.Ct. 493 , 121 L.Ed. 2d 431 (1992) ; then citing, inter alia, Midgett v. N.C.