N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-15.1
Restoration of property and cancellation of contract
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
NCLEGncleg.gov (official)
JustiaChapter 75
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
In any suit instituted by the Attorney General to enjoin a practice alleged to violate G.S. 75-1.1, the presiding judge may, upon a final determination of the cause, order the restoration of any moneys or property and the cancellation of any contract obtained by any defendant as a result of such violation. (1973, c. 614, s. 2.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1977–2022 · leading case: State Ex Rel. Edmisten v. J. C. Penney Co.
State Ex Rel. Edmisten v. J. C. Penney Co. (1977)
“Also, bolstering our view of the legislature's intent is G.S. 75-15.1, a companion enforcement provision to G.”
State Ex Rel. Easley v. Rich Food Services, Inc. (2000)
“Further, the State contends that it is entitled pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-15.1 to seek cancellation of contracts and restitution on behalf of consumers injured by unfair and deceptive trade practices.”
State Ex Rel. Cooper v. NCCS Loans, Inc. (2005)
“Defendants argue next that the court erred by decreeing that “Advance Internet rebate contracts with North Carolina consumers [were] cancelled pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-15.1 ,” and by requiring “all funds collected by the defendants pursuant to such contracts .”
In Re New Motor Vehicles Canadian Export Antitrust Litigation (2004)
“, N.C. Gen.Stat. § 75-15.1 (allowing the court, in a suit instituted by the Attorney General, to “order the restoration of any moneys or property .”
Atlantic Purchasers, Inc., Stella Maris Inn, Ltd. v. Aircraft Sales, Inc., Donald J. Anklin (1983)
“3 The Act may be enforced by civil actions brought by the state attorney general, N.C.G.S. §§ 75-15.1, 75-15.2, and also confers a private right of action on an injured party, N.”
Bache Halsey Stuart, Inc. v. Hunsucker (1978)
“G.S. 75-15.1. If the Attorney General were plaintiff in this action and were seeking injunctive relief as is defendant in his counterclaim, we would be disposed to find that the State regulation was pre-empted.”
Mayton v. Hiatt's Used Cars, Inc. (1980)
“75-14, the Attorney General has power to obtain mandatory orders to carry out the provisions of Chapter 75, and under G.S. 75-15.1, the presiding judge has power in any suit brought by the Attorney General to order “the restoration of any moneys or property and the cancellation…”
State ex rel. Edmisten v. Zim Chemical Co. (1980)
“G.S. 75-15.1 and therefore error. We agree with the state’s position that the court properly awarded restitution to these indirect purchasers from Zim.”
State Ex Rel. Edmisten v. Zim Chemical Co. (1980)
“G.S. 75-15.1 and therefore error. We agree with the state's position that the court properly awarded restitution to these indirect purchasers from Zim.”
Southeastern Public Safety Group Inc. v. Munn (2022)
“” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-15.1 (2). Although Plaintiff’s civil conspiracy and UDTPA claims against CSP border on frivolous and unreasonable, the Court finds the extreme sanction of attorney’s fees inappropriate here, particularly in light of the sole dismissal at such an early…”
State v. Orion Processing, LLC (2017)
“Pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-15.1 and § 14-425, Plaintiffs are entitled to an award of the disgorgement of all amounts paid by North Carolina consumers into Defendants’ debt settlement program that have not previously been refunded or paid to consumers’ creditors.”
State ex rel. Cooper v. Nccs Loans, Inc. (2005)
“Defendants argue next that the court erred by decreeing that "Advance Internet rebate contracts with North Carolina consumers [were] cancelled pursuant to N.C. Gen.Stat. § 75-15.1," and by requiring "all funds collected by the defendants pursuant to such contracts .”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.