Blogs

Beltway landowners ask for help from N.C. Supreme Court

Further link to information on Condemnation Attorneys Hendrick Bryant (ask for Matthew Bryant 336-723-7200). Attached is the Winston-Salem Journal article discussing the arguments before the North Carolina Supreme Court.

A Condemnation Action is when the government intends to take private real property from the owner. The governmental agency is required to give the land owner just compensation for the value of the property.

Landlord: Background Check on Tenants Prior to Lease

Landlords: So that you know what you are getting into before you sign a lease. I recommend doing a background check (comp report) on the Tenant.

If you want a comp report, I recommend Ken Whapham Investigations (336-499-7108)

Here's his linkedin contact:

NC Condemnation Cases-Hendrick Bryant

A Winston-Salem law firm, Hendrick Bryant Nerhood & Otis, has taken on the NCDOT in a class action lawsuit affecting the Northern Beltway in Winston-Salem, Forsyth County, North Carolina.

The owners, who have had their properties listed on the Register of Deeds as being in the Northern Beltway, have not had their property purchased by the DOT and can't sell it  for market prices with that blemish on title. It's a trap these owners have lived with for over 12 years.

Follow Sanders Law Firm PLLC (social media)

To stay up to date on Sanders Law Firm, PLLC blogs and information, go to one of these sites:

FACEBOOK: https://www.facebook.com/sanderslawfirm 

GOOGLE+ : https://plus.google.com/u/0/b/105364463770559697385/+SandersLawFirmPLLCWinstonSalem/posts/p/pub 

TWITTER: https://twitter.com/KirkSandersLaw

Patent holder bears burden of proving infringement in licensee declaratory judgment action for non-infringement

In Medtronic, Inc. v. Mirowski Family Ventures, LLC, the Supreme Court held that "when a licensee seeks a declaratory judgment against a patentee to establish that there is no infringement, the burden of proving infringement remains with the patentee."

Constitutional Law case: California’s ban on LGBT conversion therapy to minors upheld

California Senate Bill 1172 bans state-licensed mental health providers from engaging in “sexual orientation change efforts” (i.e., conversion therapy to change sexual orientation) with patients under 18 years of age. The constitutionality of the Bill was challenged in Pickup v. Brown and Welch v. Brown, in which the plaintiffs claimed that Bill violated the First Amendment because it prohibited therapists from expressing their viewpoints on same-sex relationships.

Negligent Lane Shifting Example (NC personal injury)

Friday morning, January 17, 2014, the Winston-Salem Police Department responded to US 421 North bound on a report of a traffic collision involving personal injury and a WSFC school bus.

The police department investigation revealed that a Toyota passenger car, operated by Vannois Tally Jefferson IV, was attempting to merge from the right lane into the left Lane.

Jefferson did not observe the Dodge Neon driven by Brittany Sadonna Jones, traveling in the left lane as he made his move. Jefferson was issued a traffic citation for unsafe movement.

An example of a (potential) personal injury claim with punitive damages claim also

An example of a (potential) personal injury claim with punitive damages claim also.

Per information reported by BRANDON SHULLEETA of the Richmond Times-Dispatch the following is discussed pertaining to potential wrongful death case.

Expungements: New NC law prohibits employers, educational institutions and agencies of State and local governments from asking about expunged matters

A new law regarding inquiries into expunged records went in effect on December 1, 2013. Under this law, you are not required to include any information that has been expunged when asked about past crimes by a prospective employer or an educational institution.

Trademark Ruling: SWAP not descriptive or confusingly similar to SWATCH watches

In Swatch AG’s challenge to defendant Beehive Wholesale’s trademark application for its “SWAP” watch bands with interchangeable faces, the 4th Circuit affirms dismissal of Swatch’s claims for federal, state and common law trademark infringement, trademark dilution and unfair competition.

The court found that SWAP was not a descriptive mark for Beehive’s interchangeable watches and noted that individuals, even retail professionals familiar with the products, had to exercise some imagination to connect “SWAP” with the function of Beehive’s watches.

Pages

Subscribe to RSS - blogs