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.
7 North Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 2001–2020 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 |
|---|---|---|
Dalton v. Campgreen2 sentences2020Finally, “the mere existence of an employer-employee relationship does not in and of itself serve to exclude a party from pursuing an unfair trade or practice claim.” Dalton v. Camp, 353 N.C. 647, 656 , 548 S.E.2d 704, 710 (2001). 2020Finally, “the mere existence of an employer-employee relationship does not in and of itself serve to exclude a party from pursuing an unfair trade or practice claim.” Dalton v. Camp, 353 N.C. 647, 656 , 548 S.E.2d 704, 710 (2001). | 5 | 7 |
Sara Lee Corp. v. Cartergreen2 sentences2020App. 483, 488 , 554 S.E.2d 1, 4 (2001) (quoting Dalton v. Camp, 353 N.C. 647, 656 , 548 S.E.2d 704, 711 (2001)); see Sara Lee Corp. v. Carter, 351 N.C. 27, 34 , 519 S.E.2d 308, 312 (1999); Gupta, 2019 NCBC LEXIS 40 , *at 21. 63. 2020App. 483, 488 , 554 S.E.2d 1, 4 (2001) (quoting Dalton v. Camp, 353 N.C. 647, 656 , 548 S.E.2d 704, 711 (2001)); see Sara Lee Corp. v. Carter, 351 N.C. 27, 34 , 519 S.E.2d 308, 312 (1999); Gupta, 2019 NCBC LEXIS 40 , *at 21. 63. | 3 | 4 |
Durling v. Kinggreen2 sentences2020Nevertheless, “the mere existence of an employer-employee relationship does not in and of itself serve to exclude a party from pursuing an unfair trade or practice claim.” Durling v. King, 146 N.C. 2019However, “the mere existence of an employer-employee relationship does not in and of itself serve to exclude a party from pursuing an unfair trade or practice claim.” Durling v. King, 146 N.C. | 2 | 2 |
Esposito v. Talbert & Bright, Inc.green1 sentence2019App. 483, 488 , 554 S.E.2d 1, 4 (2001) (quoting Dalton, 353 N.C. at 656 , 541 S.E.2d at 197); see Esposito v. Talbert & Bright, Inc., 181 N.C. | 1 | 1 |
Wilson v. Blue Ridge Electric Membership Corp.green1 sentence2016App. 355, 358 , 578 S.E.2d 692, 694 (2003); see also Kingsdown, 2015 NCBC LEXIS 30 , at *28–29 (dismissing UDTP claim which “plainly involve[d] internal business disputes rather than interactions with business or consumers”); McKee v. James, 2014 15 Although our appellate courts have held that “[section 75-1.1] does not normally extend to run-of-the-mill employment disputes," Dalton v. Camp, 353 N.C. 647, 656 , 548 S.E.2d 704, 710 (2001), “the mere existence of an employer-employee relationship does not in and of itself serve to exclude a party from pursuing an unfair trade or practice claim.” | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Kewaunee Scientific Corporation v. Pegram
green
1 sentence2001See, e.g., Sara Lee Corp. v. Carter, 351 N.C. 27 , 519 S.E.2d 308 (1999) (employee guilty of unfair and deceptive trade acts where he starts his own company, which then sells computer hardware and services to his employer at inflated prices); Kewaunee Scientific Corp. v. Pegram, 130 N.C. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
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.