Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
8 North Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 2002–2025 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Internet East, Inc. v. Duro Communications, Inc.green2 sentences2013App. 401, 403 , 553 S.E.2d 84, 86 (2001) (enforcing a mandatory forum selection clause where the clause provided: “The parties... stipulate that the State courts of North Carolina shall have sole jurisdiction... and that venue shall be proper and shall lie exclusively in the Superior Court of Pitt County, North Carolina”). 2013App. 401, 403 , 553 S.E.2d 84, 85-86 (2001) (finding that an agreement contained a mandatory forum selection clause where the agreement provided that “the State courts of North Carolina shall have sole jurisdiction . . . and that venue shall be proper and shall lie exclusively in the Superior Court of Pitt County, North Carolina”); Appliance Sales & Serv., Inc. v. Command Elecs. | 3 | 3 |
Johnston County v. R. N. Rouse & Co.green2 sentences2013Rouse & Co., 331 N.C. 88, 93 (1992). [11] North Carolina courts have held that forum selection clauses are valid and enforceable except when compelling reasons dictate otherwise. 2009Rouse & Co., Inc., 331 N.C. 88, 93 , 414 S.E.2d 30, 33 (1992). {42} Our “Supreme Court has held that forum selection clauses are valid and enforceable except when compelling reasons dictate otherwise.” Sec. | 2 | 2 |
Appliance Sales & Service, Inc. v. Command Electronics Corp.green2 sentences2013App. 14, 23 , 443 S.E.2d 784, 790 (1994) (finding contractual language providing that “the Courts in Charleston County, South Carolina shall have exclusive jurisdiction and venue” to be a mandatory forum selection clause). 2002App. 401, 403 , 553 S.E.2d 84, 86 (2001) (holding that clause was a mandatory forum selection clause where clause provided that “The parties . . . stipulate that the State Courts of North Carolina shall have sole jurisdiction . . . and that venue shall be proper and shall lie exclusively in the Superior Court of Pitt County, North Carolina”); Appliance Sales & Service v. Command Electronics Corp., 115 N.C. | 2 | 2 |
Perkins v. CCH Computax, Inc.green2 sentences2009Cf. Brantley, 424 F.3d at 395–96. {69} In sum, on these facts, the Court is hard-pressed to imagine a closer relationship between parties and alleged wrongs that would justify extending the reach of a mandatory forum selection clause so as to require litigation of all claims related to the dispute in one venue. {70} Finally, the Court discerns no public policy concerns that justify relieving SAG from the reach of the mandatory forum selection clauses. {71} SAG’s burden on this issue is a heavy one, requiring a showing that “the clause was the product of fraud or unequal bargaining power or tha 2009Cf. Brantley, 424 F.3d at 395–96. {69} In sum, on these facts, the Court is hard-pressed to imagine a closer relationship between parties and alleged wrongs that would justify extending the reach of a mandatory forum selection clause so as to require litigation of all claims related to the dispute in one venue. {70} Finally, the Court discerns no public policy concerns that justify relieving SAG from the reach of the mandatory forum selection clauses. {71} SAG’s burden on this issue is a heavy one, requiring a showing that “the clause was the product of fraud or unequal bargaining power or tha | 1 | 2 |
CQL Original Products, Inc. v. National Hockey League Players' Ass'ngreen1 sentence2014The Berg Court compared the clause to three forum selection clauses previously determined to be mandatory: “any and all litigation that may arise as a result of this Agreement shall be litigated in Dade County, Florida[,]” (quoting Lu v. Dryclean-U.S.A. of California, Inc., 11 Cal. App. 4th 1490, 1492 (1992)); “any claims shall be prosecuted in the appropriate court of Ontario[,]” (quoting CQL Original Products, -8- Inc. v. National Hockey League Players' Assn., 39 Cal. App. 4th 1347, 1352 (1995)); and “[a]ny appropriate state or federal district court located in the Borough of Manhattan, New | 1 | 1 |
Lu v. Dryclean-U.S.A. of California, Inc.green1 sentence2014The Berg Court compared the clause to three forum selection clauses previously determined to be mandatory: “any and all litigation that may arise as a result of this Agreement shall be litigated in Dade County, Florida[,]” (quoting Lu v. Dryclean-U.S.A. of California, Inc., 11 Cal. App. 4th 1490, 1492 (1992)); “any claims shall be prosecuted in the appropriate court of Ontario[,]” (quoting CQL Original Products, -8- Inc. v. National Hockey League Players' Assn., 39 Cal. App. 4th 1347, 1352 (1995)); and “[a]ny appropriate state or federal district court located in the Borough of Manhattan, New | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Hunt Wesson Foods, Inc. v. Supreme Oil Company
green
1 sentence2025Id. (contrasting with permissive forum-selection clause at - 17 - EARNHARDT PLUMBING, LLC V. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
OFC CAPITAL v. Colonial Distributors, Inc.
green
2 sentences2020Id. at 817 , 648 S.E.2d at 142 . 2020Id. at 817 , 648 S.E.2d at 142 . | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Cal-State Business Products & Services, Inc. v. Ricoh
green
1 sentence2014The Berg Court compared the clause to three forum selection clauses previously determined to be mandatory: “any and all litigation that may arise as a result of this Agreement shall be litigated in Dade County, Florida[,]” (quoting Lu v. Dryclean-U.S.A. of California, Inc., 11 Cal. App. 4th 1490, 1492 (1992)); “any claims shall be prosecuted in the appropriate court of Ontario[,]” (quoting CQL Original Products, -8- Inc. v. National Hockey League Players' Assn., 39 Cal. App. 4th 1347, 1352 (1995)); and “[a]ny appropriate state or federal district court located in the Borough of Manhattan, New | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Kenisha Brantley Greg Brantley, on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated v. Republic Mortgage Insurance Company
green
1 sentence2009Cf. Brantley, 424 F.3d at 395–96. {69} In sum, on these facts, the Court is hard-pressed to imagine a closer relationship between parties and alleged wrongs that would justify extending the reach of a mandatory forum selection clause so as to require litigation of all claims related to the dispute in one venue. {70} Finally, the Court discerns no public policy concerns that justify relieving SAG from the reach of the mandatory forum selection clauses. {71} SAG’s burden on this issue is a heavy one, requiring a showing that “the clause was the product of fraud or unequal bargaining power or tha | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.