6 North Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1992–2018 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 |
|---|---|---|
Drouillard v. Keister Williams Newspaper Services, Inc.green2 sentences2018App. 169, 172 , 423 S.E.2d 324, 326 (1992) (“If the violation of the Trade Secrets Protection Act satisfies this three prong test, it would be a violation of [G.S.] § 75- 1.1.”) The Court already has concluded that issues of fact remain for resolution by a jury regarding Plaintiff’s claim for misappropriation of trade secrets, and such claim could support Plaintiff’s claim under the UDTPA. 52. 2003App. 169 , 423 S.E. 2d 324 (1992) (holding that if a violation of the North Carolina Trade Secrets Protection Act satisfies the three prong test, then it would be a violation of N.C.G.S. § 75-1.1), appeal dismissed and review denied , 333 N.C. 344 , 427 S.E.2d 617 (1993); Bernard v. Central Carolina Truck Sales , 68 N.C. | 1 | 2 |
Bernard v. Cent. Carolina Truck Salesgreen1 sentence2003App. 228, 230 , 314 S.E.2d 582, 584 (1984) (“As previously stated, an action for unfair and deceptive acts or practices is a distinct action [and] . . . creates a cause of action broader than traditional common law actions. . . .”). {264} Whether an act or practice is unfair is determined on a case-by-case basis, and “the fair or unfair nature of particular conduct is to be judged by viewing it against the background of actual human experience and by determining its intended and actual effects upon others.” United Laboratories v. Kuykendall , 102 N.C. | 1 | 1 |
Bernard v. Central Carolina Truck Sales, Inc.green1 sentence2003App. 169 , 423 S.E. 2d 324 (1992) (holding that if a violation of the North Carolina Trade Secrets Protection Act satisfies the three prong test, then it would be a violation of N.C.G.S. § 75-1.1), appeal dismissed and review denied , 333 N.C. 344 , 427 S.E.2d 617 (1993); Bernard v. Central Carolina Truck Sales , 68 N.C. | 1 | 1 |
Bryson v. Sullivangreen2 sentences1992Compliance with the first two prongs of this rule requires the signer to certify “that to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief formed after reasonable inquiry it is well grounded in fact and is warranted by existing law.” In this regard, our Supreme Court has interpreted the term “reasonable inquiry” and determined that “[i]f, given the knowledge and information which can be imputed to a party, a reasonable person under the same or similar circumstances would have terminated his or her inquiry and formed the belief that the claim was warranted under existing law, then the party’s 1992Compliance with the first two prongs of this rule requires the signer to certify “that to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief formed after reasonable inquiry it is well grounded in fact and is warranted by existing law.” In this regard, our Supreme Court has interpreted the term “reasonable inquiry” and determined that “[i]f, given the knowledge and information which can be imputed to a party, a reasonable person under the same or similar circumstances would have terminated his or her inquiry and formed the belief that the claim was warranted under existing law, then the party’s | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Ge Betz, Inc. v. Conrad
green
2 sentences2018App. 214 , 752 S.E.2d 634 (2013), consistent with Drouillard, that a TSPA violation constitutes a violation of section 75-1.1 only if it satisfies the three prong test, Ge Betz, Inc. 231 N.C. 2018App. 214 , 752 S.E.2d 634 (2013), consistent with Drouillard, that a TSPA violation constitutes a violation of section 75-1.1 only if it satisfies the three prong test, Ge Betz, Inc. 231 N.C. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Collins
green
1 sentence2012App. _, 716 S.E.2d 255 (2011). | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Enderby v. Davis
neutral
1 sentence2003App. 169 , 423 S.E. 2d 324 (1992) (holding that if a violation of the North Carolina Trade Secrets Protection Act satisfies the three prong test, then it would be a violation of N.C.G.S. § 75-1.1), appeal dismissed and review denied , 333 N.C. 344 , 427 S.E.2d 617 (1993); Bernard v. Central Carolina Truck Sales , 68 N.C. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Abels v. Renfro Corp.
neutral
1 sentence2003App. 169 , 423 S.E. 2d 324 (1992) (holding that if a violation of the North Carolina Trade Secrets Protection Act satisfies the three prong test, then it would be a violation of N.C.G.S. § 75-1.1), appeal dismissed and review denied , 333 N.C. 344 , 427 S.E.2d 617 (1993); Bernard v. Central Carolina Truck Sales , 68 N.C. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
United Laboratories, Inc. v. Kuykendall
green
1 sentence2003App. 228, 230 , 314 S.E.2d 582, 584 (1984) (“As previously stated, an action for unfair and deceptive acts or practices is a distinct action [and] . . . creates a cause of action broader than traditional common law actions. . . .”). {264} Whether an act or practice is unfair is determined on a case-by-case basis, and “the fair or unfair nature of particular conduct is to be judged by viewing it against the background of actual human experience and by determining its intended and actual effects upon others.” United Laboratories v. Kuykendall , 102 N.C. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Harrelson v. Soles
green
2 sentences1992Id. at 561 , 380 S.E.2d at 531 . *12 The Commission adopted the following findings of fact found by the Deputy Commissioner to support the conclusion that the three prong test set forth in Glenn and Harrelson has been met: Findings of Fact Rhyne or Mrs. Rhyne, either personally or in their corporate capacity, either knew or should have known of the requirements of Chapter 97 of the North Carolina Workers’ Compensation Act. 1992Id. at 561 , 380 S.E.2d at 531 . *12 The Commission adopted the following findings of fact found by the Deputy Commissioner to support the conclusion that the three prong test set forth in Glenn and Harrelson has been met: Findings of Fact Rhyne or Mrs. Rhyne, either personally or in their corporate capacity, either knew or should have known of the requirements of Chapter 97 of the North Carolina Workers’ Compensation Act. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
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.