Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Erthal v. May

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided November 20, 2012No. COA12-603Published

1ConcurrenceBeasley, Judge

I agree with the majority that the trial court should not have granted summary judgment in favor of Plaintiffs, but I would reach this result on differing grounds. I would not find the restrictive covenants to be ambiguous; I would reverse and remand the case as I believe there is an issue of material fact regarding the defense of laches. I also would reverse the order granting Plaintiffs summary judgment on Defendants’ counterclaims since the record is unclear as to whether Defendants had an “adequate opportunity” to show that there was a genuine issue of fact. Thus, I write separately.

First,…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. J. T. Hobby & Son, Inc. v. Family Homes of Wake County, Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1981
  2. A-S-P Associates v. City of RaleighSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1979
  3. MMR HOLDINGS, LLC v. City of CharlotteCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2001
  4. N. C. Coastal Motor Line, Inc. v. Everette Truck Line, Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1985
  5. Farley v. HollerCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2007

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API