fiduciary duty claim (North Carolina) · Go Syfert
← North Carolina issues

fiduciary duty claim in North Carolina

7 North Carolina opinions name it 3 courts 1993–2026 2 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.

Followed or applied (4)

CaseFollowedCited
Bluebird Corp. v. Aubingreen
ncctapp · 2008 · cited in 1 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2026–2026
1 sentence

2026Defendants seek dismissal of Plaintiff’s fourth claim, contending that Plaintiff’s tort claim is barred by the applicable three-year statute of limitations governing contracts and the economic loss doctrine. 60 Plaintiff premises his constructive fraud claim on the same conduct as the fiduciary duty claim, so where appropriate, the Court will consider these claims together. 59 Regarding choice of law, “[t]he internal affairs doctrine is a conflict of laws principle which recognizes that only one State should have the authority to regulate a corporation’s internal affairs . . . because otherwis

11
Dallaire v. Bank of America, N.A.green
nc · 2014 · cited in 1 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2026–2026
1 sentence

2026“Ordinary borrower-lender transactions . . . are considered arm’s length and do not typically give rise to fiduciary duties.” Dallaire v. Bank of Am., N.A., 367 N.C. 363, 368 (2014).

11
Heath v. Craighill, Rendleman, Ingle & Blythe, P.A.green
· 1990 · cited in 1 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2018–2018
1 sentence

2018Heath v. Craighill, Rendleman, Ingle & Blythe, P.A., 97 N.C.

11
Blow v. Shaughnessygreen
ncctapp · 1988 · cited in 1 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2011–2011
1 sentence

2011See Blow, 88 N.C.

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in North Carolina. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (3)

CaseCitedYears
Sharp v. Teague green
ncctapp · 1994
1 sentence

2012“Fraud by an attorney . . . is not within the scope of ‘professional services’ . . . [and] cannot be ‘malpractice’ within the meaning of [G.S. § 1-15(c)].” Sharp v. Teague, 113 N.C.

12012–2012
Brazen v. Bell Atlantic Corp. green
del · 1997
1 sentence

2001Corp., 695 A.2d 43 (Del. 1997), in which the Delaware Supreme Court chose to rely on a liquidated damages analysis rather than use the fiduciary duty analysis applied by the Chancery Court.

12001–2001
Midamerica Federal Savings & Loan Association v. Shearson/American Express, Inc. green
ca10 · 1992
2 sentences

1993Id.

1993Id.

11993–1993

Where else courts name it

DE 49 (1977–2026) NY 27 (2006–2023) TX 22 (2003–2024) IL 19 (1998–2021) CA 16 (1992–2026) MA 11 (2006–2026) OH 8 (2004–2025) AZ 7 (1963–2025) NC 7 (1993–2026) CO 6 (1992–2016) CT 6 (1999–2025) GA 6 (2013–2024) MI 4 (2020–2026) UT 4 (2018–2025) LA 3 (1997–2003) WA 3 (1990–2018) IN 3 (2000–2019) NV 2 (2019–2024) FL 2 (2008–2026) RI 2 (2004–2011) TN 2 (2004–2021) MD 2 (1964–1991)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check