Meiselman v. Meiselman
Court of Appeals of North Carolina
1Opinion of the Court
BECTON, Judge.
With remarkable clarity, and in exceptionally well-researched and well-written briefs, the parties have painstakingly set forth their contentions.1 Indeed, we have partially adopted, as a model, *760the outlines used by the parties in structuring their arguments. Having reviewed the record and the applicable law, we reverse the trial court’s holdings that Michael is not entitled to relief under G.S. 55-125.1 and that there was no actionable breach of fiduciary duty by Ira.
I
The Development and Distribution of the H. B. Meiselman Enterprise.
Michael and Ira are the only surviving…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Miner v. Belle Isle Ice Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1893
- Baker v. Commercial Body Builders, Inc.Oregon Supreme Court · 1973
- Loy v. Lorm Corp.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1981
- Pender v. . SpeightSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1912
- Flemming v. Heffner & FlemmingMichigan Supreme Court · 1933
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- LeCann v. Cobham (In re Cobham)District Court, E.D. North Carolina · 2016
- Umstead v. Durham Hosiery Mills, Inc.District Court, M.D. North Carolina · 1984
- Wilson v. Wilson-Cook Medical, Inc.District Court, M.D. North Carolina · 1989
- Stancil v. StancilCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1989
- T-Wol Acquisition Co. v. Ecdg South, LLCCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2012
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.