Centura Bank v. Pee Dee Express, Inc.
Court of Appeals of North Carolina
1Opinion of the Court
MARTIN, MARK D., Judge.
The question presented is whether the trial court erred by finding defendants had sufficient minimum contacts with North Carolina to justify the assertion of personal jurisdiction. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
In February 1991 Pee Dee Express, Inc. (Pee Dee), contacted Earl B. Mikell, Jr. (Mikell), president of M & W Truck Sales, Inc., of Florence, South Carolina, about purchasing or leasing trucks for use in Pee Dee’s business. Mikell contacted Flagstone Leasing of Greensboro, North Carolina, a financial broker, about arranging financing for the sale or lease…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- International Shoe Co. v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
- Burger King Corp. v. RudzewiczSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
- Hanson v. DencklaSupreme Court of the United States · 1958
- Vishay Intertechnology, Inc., a Delaware Corporation v. Delta International Corporation, a California CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1982
- United Buying Group, Inc. v. ColemanSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1979
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Robbins v. InghamCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2006
- Brown v. Refuel America, Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 2007
- Saft America, Inc. v. Plainview Batteries, Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 2008
- Padron v. Bentley Marine Grp., LLCCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2018
- Aym Techs., LLC v. RodgersNorth Carolina Business Court · 2018
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.