10 North Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 2007–2022 4 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by North Carolina courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Craven v. SEIU COPEgreen2 sentences2022See Craven v. SEIU COPE, 188 N.C. 2021See Craven v. SEIU COPE, 188 N.C. | 2 | 2 |
Broussard v. Meineke Discount Muffler Shops, Inc.green2 sentences2022See Broussard, 945 F. Supp. at 917 . 2022See Broussard, 945 F. Supp. at 917 . | 2 | 2 |
Bumpers v. Cmty. Bank of N. Va.green2 sentences2015App. 731, 738 , 659 S.E.2d 483, 488 (2008) (citation omitted). “‘A practice is unfair when it offends established public policy as well as when the practice is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous, or substantially injurious to consumers,’ and a ‘practice is deceptive if it has the capacity or tendency to deceive.’” Bumpers v. Cmty. Bank of Va., 367 N.C. 81, 91 , 747 S.E.2d 220, 228 (2013). 2015App. 731, 738 , 659 S.E.2d 483, 488 (2008) (citation omitted). “‘A practice is unfair when it offends established public policy as well as when the practice is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous, or substantially injurious to consumers,’ and a ‘practice is deceptive if it has the capacity or tendency to deceive.’” Bumpers v. Cmty. Bank of Va., 367 N.C. 81, 91 , 747 S.E.2d 220, 228 (2013). | 1 | 1 |
Nucor Corp. v. Prudential Equity Group, LLCgreen2 sentences2015Defendants Lackey, Saldarini, Pacific Capital and the Pacific Fund seek summary judgment dismissing Plaintiffs’ UDTPA claim against them. {86} “A claim of unfair and deceptive trade practices under N.C.G.S. § 75-1.1 of the North Carolina General Statutes requires proof of three elements: (1) an unfair or deceptive act or practice, (2) in or affecting commerce, which (3) proximately caused actual injury to the claimant.” Nucor Corp. v. Prudential Equity Grp., LLC, 189 N.C. 2015App. 731, 738 , 659 S.E.2d 483, 488 (2008) (citation omitted). “‘A practice is unfair when it offends established public policy as well as when the practice is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous, or substantially injurious to consumers,’ and a ‘practice is deceptive if it has the capacity or tendency to deceive.’” Bumpers v. Cmty. Bank of Va., 367 N.C. 81, 91 , 747 S.E.2d 220, 228 (2013). | 1 | 1 |
Tucker v. Boulevard at Piper Glen LLCgreen1 sentence2012App. 150, 154 , 564 S.E.2d 248, 251 (2002)). {42} Plaintiffs’ UDTPA claim against Wells Fargo fails because, as previously noted, Plaintiffs do not allege actual reliance on any representations by Wachovia in deciding to purchase Lot 151. | 1 | 1 |
Childers v. Hayesgreen1 sentence2009See Childers v. Hayes, 77 N.C. | 1 | 1 |
Phelps-Dickson Builders, LLC v. Amerimann Partnersgreen1 sentence2007App. 427, 439 , 617 S.E.2d 664, 671 (2005). {49} Defendants assert that Plaintiffs’ UDTPA claim fails as a matter of law because it does not allege an in-state injury. | 1 | 1 |
Marshall v. Millergreen2 sentences2007Put another way, Plaintiffs fail to allege what standing they have to vindicate the rights of consumers purportedly violated by Defendants’ actions. 7 {79} Third, while the Court agrees with Plaintiffs that a political subdivision of the State may, under certain circumstances, pursue a UDTPA claim, it finds no basis for allowing such a claim on these facts. {80} In enacting the UDTPA, the North Carolina General Assembly “intended to establish an effective private cause of action for aggrieved consumers in [North Carolina] . . . because common law remedies had proved often ineffective.” Marshal 2007Put another way, Plaintiffs fail to allege what standing they have to vindicate the rights of consumers purportedly violated by Defendants’ actions. 7 {79} Third, while the Court agrees with Plaintiffs that a political subdivision of the State may, under certain circumstances, pursue a UDTPA claim, it finds no basis for allowing such a claim on these facts. {80} In enacting the UDTPA, the North Carolina General Assembly “intended to establish an effective private cause of action for aggrieved consumers in [North Carolina] . . . because common law remedies had proved often ineffective.” Marshal | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in North Carolina. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Hajmm Co. v. House of Raeford Farms, Inc.
green
2 sentences2015Hajmm Co., 328 N.C. at 593 , 403 S.E.2d at 492 . 2015Hajmm Co., 328 N.C. at 593 , 403 S.E.2d at 492 . | 1 | 2015–2015 |
cluster 766496
green
1 sentence2007As W&R aptly notes, the Court’s proper focus under the relevant cases is not “who is a party to the transaction,” but rather “what is the purpose of the transaction.” (Defs.’ Reply Mem. in Supp. of Mot. to Dismiss Pls.’ Fourth Claim for Relief 3 (citing Food Lion, Inc. v. CapitalCities/ABC, Inc., 194 F.3d 505 , 520 (4th Cir. 1999)).) 4 Plaintiffs, however, do not allege this fact in their pleading. {47} Were I writing on a clean slate, I would not dismiss Plaintiffs’ UDTPA claim as, like Justice Martin, I find no logical basis for excluding misrepresentations made in the context of capital rai | 1 | 2007–2007 |
White v. Consolidated Planning, Inc.
green
1 sentence2007Planning, Inc., 166 N.C. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.