7 North Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 2000–2018 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Buschi v. Kirvengreen2 sentences2015Ct. Aug. 22, 2000), http://www.ncbusinesscourt.net/opinions/2000%20NCBC%2011.htm (to similar effect). {57} Further, although Ms. Ray correctly notes that an exception to the doctrine of intracorporate immunity may exist if the agent of the corporation has an “independent personal stake in achieving the corporation’s illegal objective,” Buschi v. Kirven, 775 F.2d 1240, 1252 (4th Cir. 1985) (citing Greenville Publishing Co., v. Daley Reflector, Inc., 496 F.2d 391, 399 (4th Cir. 1974)), this Court has previously observed that “[t]his ‘independent personal stake’ exception must not be interpreted 2000Plaintiffs further seek to amend their complaint to allege that “Hilliard acted in his individual capacity, seeking to serve his personal, corrupt financial interest to unlawfully deprive plaintiffs of the value of their interest in Southeastern.” The amendment is sought to overcome the limitations of the intracorporate immunity doctrine. {26} The Fourth Circuit recognized the doctrine of intracorporate immunity in Buschi v. Kirven, 775 F.2d 1240, 1252 (4th Cir. 1985). | 3 | 3 |
State Ex Rel. Cooper v. Ridgeway Brands Manufacturing, LLCgreen2 sentences2018App. 613, 625 , 646 S.E.2d 790, 799 (2007) (“The doctrine of intracorporate immunity holds that, since at least two persons must be present to form a conspiracy, a corporation cannot conspire with itself, just as an individual cannot conspire with himself. 2018App. 613, 625 , 646 S.E.2d 790, 799 (2007) (“The doctrine of intracorporate immunity holds that, since at least two persons must be present to form a conspiracy, a corporation cannot conspire with itself, just as an individual cannot conspire with himself. | 2 | 2 |
Garlock v. Hilliardgreen2 sentences2015Ct. Aug. 22, 2000), http://www.ncbusinesscourt.net/opinions/2000%20NCBC%2011.htm (to similar effect). {57} Further, although Ms. Ray correctly notes that an exception to the doctrine of intracorporate immunity may exist if the agent of the corporation has an “independent personal stake in achieving the corporation’s illegal objective,” Buschi v. Kirven, 775 F.2d 1240, 1252 (4th Cir. 1985) (citing Greenville Publishing Co., v. Daley Reflector, Inc., 496 F.2d 391, 399 (4th Cir. 1974)), this Court has previously observed that “[t]his ‘independent personal stake’ exception must not be interpreted 2005“Alleging that a corporation is conspiring with its agents, officers or employees is accusing a corporation of conspiring with itself.” Garlock v. Hilliard , 2000 NCBC 11 at ¶ 26 (Mecklenburg County Super. | 2 | 2 |
Greenville Publishing Company, Inc. v. The Daily Reflector, Incorporatedgreen1 sentence2015Ct. Aug. 22, 2000), http://www.ncbusinesscourt.net/opinions/2000%20NCBC%2011.htm (to similar effect). {57} Further, although Ms. Ray correctly notes that an exception to the doctrine of intracorporate immunity may exist if the agent of the corporation has an “independent personal stake in achieving the corporation’s illegal objective,” Buschi v. Kirven, 775 F.2d 1240, 1252 (4th Cir. 1985) (citing Greenville Publishing Co., v. Daley Reflector, Inc., 496 F.2d 391, 399 (4th Cir. 1974)), this Court has previously observed that “[t]his ‘independent personal stake’ exception must not be interpreted | 1 | 1 |
Friel v. Angell Care Inc.green1 sentence2015App 505, 510, 440 S.E.2d 111, 114 (1994)). {86} When a plaintiff invokes a conspiracy theory to attack a move by multiple employees from one employer to another, a court must be sensitive to the potential role of the doctrine of intracorporate immunity. | 1 | 1 |
Maurer v. Slickedit, Inc.green2 sentences2015Id. (“The doctrine of intracorporate immunity holds that, since at least two persons must be present to form a conspiracy, a corporation cannot conspire with itself, just as an individual cannot conspire with himself.”) (citation omitted); see also Maurer v. SlickEdit, Inc., 2005 NCBC 1 ¶ 61 (N.C. 2015Id. (“The doctrine of intracorporate immunity holds that, since at least two persons must be present to form a conspiracy, a corporation cannot conspire with itself, just as an individual cannot conspire with himself.”) (citation omitted); see also Maurer v. SlickEdit, Inc., 2005 NCBC 1 ¶ 61 (N.C. | 1 | 1 |
Copperweld Corp. v. Independence Tube Corp.green2 sentences2004Copperweld Corp. v. Independence Corp., 467 U.S. 752, 758-59 (1984). {75} Intracorporate immunity does not apply in this case. 2004Copperweld Corp. v. Independence Corp., 467 U.S. 752, 758-59 (1984). {75} Intracorporate immunity does not apply in this case. | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Selman v. American Sports Underwriters, Inc.
green
1 sentence2015Sports Underwriters, Inc., 697 F. Supp. 225 , 238–39 (E.D. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
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.
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.