REPORT ON ACTIVITIES

OF THE

NORTH CAROLINA BUSINESS COURT

2000 TO 2001

I. Introduction

II. Executive Summary

III. Description of Business Court Program

IV. Changes in 2000

A. Facility

B. Staff

V. Benefits of Business Court Technology

VI. Case Load

A. List of Closed Cases

B. List of Active Cases

C. Venue

VII. Opinions

A. List of Opinions

B. Appellate Review

C. Precedential Value

VIII. Achievements

A. Foundation for Improvement of Justice Award

B. Rand Institute Study

C. Other

IX. Replication of the Business Court Program

X. Funding

I. INTRODUCTION

Pursuant to Section 17.18 (b) of Session Law 1999-237 (see Exhibit A attached), the following is a report to the Chairs of the Senate and House Appropriations Committees and the Chairs of the Senate and House Appropriations Subcommittees on Justice and Public Safety on the activities of the North Carolina Business Court, including the number of cases heard by the Court and the number of court sessions held outside of Superior Court District 18.

II. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Summary Statement:

During the period from April 1, 2000 to present, the North Carolina Business Court has continued to expand its case load. The Court has been involved in 129 cases assigned from 25 counties. Of sixty-six closed cases, forty-six settled. Of the sixty-three cases currently being handled by the Business Court, seven are on appeal, three have reached a settlement and two are stayed. Ten of the active cases are class action suits involving numerous class members and common, often complex, issues.

This report will describe the Business Court program, identify problems addressed by its innovative use of technology and cite achievements attained during the past year. It will also identify the current and potential beneficiaries of the Business Court and its technology and demonstrate how elements of this system could be replicated in other districts that could benefit from specialized courts for complex litigation.

To illustrate the number and scope of Business Court cases, the report includes lists of closed and current cases with counties of origin and disposition or status, a State map depicting counties from which Business Court cases have been assigned, and a list of opinions issued by the Court. The Business Court’s use of technology, including the development of a paperless court through the electronic filing of documents, enhanced courtroom presentation equipment, videoconferencing capability, and public access to the Court calendar, docket, case file, and court opinions via the Internet, are all detailed in the following pages.

III. DESCRIPTION OF THE BUSINESS COURT PROGRAM

Established in 1996, the North Carolina Business Court is a national forerunner in the establishment of specialized courts for complex litigation and the implementation of “state of the art” computer technology. It provides the legal community and the court system with automated resources that will promote faster, more efficient and more economical judicial management of litigation. The Court is pioneering the use of automation concepts that greatly reduce the load of document processing and case management for civil litigation. The use and design of the programs in this facility are tailored to provide an ongoing research arena for the technology needed in the courts of North Carolina and other jurisdictions. The Court’s website is found at www.ncbusinesscourt.net and a PowerPoint presentation on the Court’s capabilities can be accessed at www.ncbusinesscourt.net/ftp/ncbn.zip.

The development of court technology for electronic filing has been an integral part of the Business Court’s plan of operation, and its expansion has resulted in a system which offers free public access to Court files, docket and calendar over the Internet, instant access to all Court opinions without the expense or delay of publication, an electronic library accessible by the Court from remote locations, and advantages to counsel afforded not only by electronic filing but also through the opportunity to use advanced courtroom equipment and technology during the course of hearings and trial. The Business Court is the first court to seamlessly integrate electronic filing and advanced courtroom technology, permitting use of electronically filed documents and exhibits in the courtroom.

Employment of this technology releases court staff to perform higher value added work and eliminates positions devoted to handling paper. For judges, it permits incorporation of new tools that facilitate efficient and economical use of judicial resources; jury instruction tools and file portability are two examples.

The system is also uniquely designed to level the playing field for use of technology in the courtroom. By providing an easy to use touch-screen system to operate all equipment and common formats for document entry, the system insures that all parties have equal access to the technology regardless of their resources.

IV. CHANGES IN 2000

A. Facility

The 2000 session of the General Assembly provided the funds to extend the facility lease for one additional year and the necessary funds to complete the technology pilot program. The building has recently been purchased by Lomax Construction Company, an entity that has been involved in other renovation projects in downtown Greensboro; the company has publicly stated plans for extensive improvement to the building.

B. Judge and Staff

The Business Court judge and staff have remained the same with the exception of a new law clerk who began work in August 2000.

Judge Tennille graduated from the University of North Carolina School of Law with honors in 1971. He was a member of the North Carolina Law Review and Order of the Coif. He was in private law practice from 1971 until 1985 with a major North Carolina law firm, gaining experience in both business law and litigation. In 1985 he joined the in house legal department of a Fortune 500 company as Associate General Counsel and Assistant Secretary and managed the litigation for that company for eight years. He served that company in a business capacity for two years, specializing in human resources, and attended executive education programs at the University of North Carolina and the University of Michigan business schools. He brings to the bench a broad background in business law and litigation.

Lisa Bartle, the current law clerk, graduated from Guilford College with a bachelor of science degree in accounting, followed by a master of business administration degree from Wake Forest’s Babcock Graduate School of Management and a law degree from Wake Forest University School of Law in 2000.

Julie Holmes is serving as the administrative assistant to the North Carolina Business Court. She has a bachelor’s degree with a double major in English and French from Furman University and received paralegal certification with emphasis on corporate law from the National Center of Paralegal Training, an A.B.A.-approved program in Atlanta, Georgia.

V. BENEFITS OF BUSINESS COURT TECHNOLOGY

All segments of the court system benefit from the use of technology within the business court program. The Clerk’s office is run far more efficiently and economically by elimination of the necessity to handle paper. Clerks can do more value added work. Storage costs are reduced. Case management is simplified, and access to valuable statistical data is available at the click of a mouse.

Lawyers and their clients save significantly in duplicating, service and storage costs. Time required in the litigation process is shortened and communication between the Court and counsel is expedited. Videoconferencing can substantially reduce expenses. Lawyers may access the Court twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week.

Judges benefit from a broad range of tools, including advanced research capabilities, file portability, quick prep for jury instructions, videoconferencing and case management capabilities, online communication between courtroom and clerk’s office, and generation of frequently used forms.

Clients have their costs reduced because both lawyers and courts are operating more efficiently.

Jurors profit from the use of the advanced courtroom technology, which speeds trials and provides communication tools for making more effective presentations.

The public is the biggest beneficiary. Court costs are reduced and the public has constant free access to court files without going to the courthouse.

VI. CASE LOAD

Procedure

Under Rule 2.1, the Chief Justice may designate any case [or group of cases] as complex business. The Rule provides that a senior resident superior court judge, chief district court judge, or presiding superior court judge may ex mero motu, or on motion of a party, recommend to the Chief Justice that a case or cases be designated as complex business. Thus, the procedure for initial designation as complex business does not differ from the procedure for having cases designated as exceptional. However, once a case is designated as complex business, it is automatically assigned to a Special Superior Court Judge for Complex Business Cases. In this respect the procedure differs from previous practice for exceptional cases in that heretofore the parties had generally agreed upon a superior court judge to hear the case as exceptional and secured his or her prior agreement to handle the case. That flexibility is not available with the complex business designation. Also, the Special Superior Court Judge for Complex Business Cases must write an opinion upon final disposition of the case. Once a case is designated as complex business, it stays with the business court for all purposes, including trial.

All cases will be tried in the county in which the case is filed unless venue is changed by agreement of the parties or in accordance with the General Statutes and Rules of Civil Procedure. Pretrial matters may be handled out of the county or district. The process for appeals from a decision of the Special Superior Court Judge for Complex Business Cases does not differ from appeals from other superior court orders and judgments.

In creating a business court, North Carolina has joined the states of Delaware, New York and Illinois in recognizing the need for specialization in complex business litigation. The American Bar Association has recommended that all states adopt some form of business court. The great burden placed upon state and federal judges by increasing criminal caseloads, combined with a growing need for fast answers in complex business disputes in today’s rapidly moving commercial and technological environment, make such courts a necessity. North Carolina has taken a leading role in development of the business court concept. Maryland and Michigan have just announced creation of special courts for complex business and technology cases, and California is conducting a pilot program for complex litigation courts.

A. List Of Closed Cases

The following list shows the 66 closed cases handled to date by the Business Court. Of these cases, 52 settled, five of which settled after Court Opinion; one settled during trial; and one settled after jury trial. There were 11 judgments, three of which were affirmed on appeal; one case was stayed, one remanded, and one voluntarily dismissed.

Name of Case

County of Origin

Case Number

Disposition

Adams Farm v. Smith	Guilford County		97 CVS 9499	Settled
Adams Outdoor Ltd Partner -ship v. City of Charlotte	Mecklenburg County		88 CVS 9786	Settled
Amos v. Southern Furniture Exhibit Building	Guilford County		96 CVS 4958	Settled
Beam v. Worldway	Mecklenburg County		96 CVS 469	Settled after Court Opinion
Beaty v. Integon Corp.	Mecklenburg County		99 CVS 11540	Vol. Dismissal
Bell, Setzer, Park and Gibson PA v. Meyers	Mecklenburg County		97 CVS 9957	Settled
Bd of Govnrs v. Cushman	Orange County		97 CVS 1429	Settled
Name of Case	County of Origin		Case Number	Disposition
Bradley v. US Packaging	Guilford County		95 CVS 8986	Judgment
Byers v. Carpenter	Wake County		94 CVS 04489	Settled
Carolina Custom v. Tiffany Marble v. Howard Butner v. Rudy Hoch	Guilford County		96 CVS-6511 97 CVS-6598 97 CVS-6998 99 CVS-3100	Settled
Case Farms v. New Hope Feeds	Burke County	96 CVS 309		Settled
Charlotte Copy Data v. Habbal	Mecklenburg County	96 CVS 694		Judgment
ChemiMetals v. McEneny	Mecklenburg County	95 CVS 10817		Settled during Jury Trial
Clark v. Holland	Wake County	96 CVS 5829		Settled after Court Opinion
Coastal Physician Group v. Price Waterhouse	Durham County	99 CVS 0578		Settled
Continuum Care v. Eakes Corp.	Warren County	96 CVS 1465		Settled
Crowder Construction v. Kiser	Mecklenburg County	95 CvS 14097		Judgment
DCC Classics v. Robert Craig & RePac	Forsyth County	97 CVS 2856		Stayed
DeJoy v. DeJoy	Guilford County	99 CVS 1245		Settled
Exide Corp. Branches v. Keever	Caldwell County	95 CVS 978		Settled
Faulkner v. Tarheel Holdings	Lenoir County	96 CVS 281		Settled
Filipowski v. High Point Bank & Trust	Guilford County	97 CVS 9317		Settled
Name of Case	County of Origin	Case Number		Disposition
Frazier v. Beard	Catawba County	94 CVS 2362		Judgment
Gaafar v. Piedmont Poultry	Wake County	96 CVS 630		Settled
Giduz v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Carolina	Orange County	97 CVS 917		Judgment On Appeal
Goings v. P.M. Mattress	Randolph County	92 CVS 785		Settled
Grossman v. Carolina Drug Inc.	Guilford County	95 CVS 8921 95 CVS 9834		Settled
Greene v. Shoemaker and Community BancShares, Inc.	Wilkes County	97 CVS 2118		Settled after Court Opinion
Griffin & Griffin Construction Co. v. Carolina Tel & Tel Co.	Cumberland County	99 CVS 7705		Settled
Hafele America Co. v. Ergonomix Armdec Pty. Ltd.	Guilford County	97 CVS 7426		Settled
Harbor Finance Partners v. PCA International, Ltd.	Mecklenburg County	98 CVS 5734		Settlement Pending
Igar v. Mark Mfg. Co.	Guilford County	97 CVS 10198		Settled
Jeffcoat v. Chicago Rawhide	Gaston County	95 CVS 4176		Settled
LaFar v. LaFar	Gaston County	98 CVS 5006		Settled
Lapedes v. Glaxo Wellcome	Wake County	98 CVS 12106		Settled
Lennon and Magruder v. MedCath, Inc.	Mecklenburg County	98 CVS 14327		Settled
Long v. Abbott Labs	Mecklenburg County	97 CVS 8289		Judgment
Lupton v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of NC	Orange County	98 CVS 633		Judgment Affirmed COA
Name of Case	County of Origin	Case Number		Disposition
Melbourne-Marsh v. North Hills, Inc..	Wake County	97 CVS 3212		Settled
Metric–Kvaerner of Fayetteville v. Bank of Tokyo - Mitsubishi, Ltd. v. Kvaerner Investments	Bladen County	97 CVS 743		Settled
Montrose Value Fund v. Freeman	Durham County	96 CVS 1220		Settled
Moore. v. NationsBank, N.A.	Mecklenburg County	99 CVS 1585		Settlement Pending
New Breed, Inc. v. DeJoy	Guilford County	00 CVS 3751		Settled
Newbury & Molinare v. Broadway & Seymour	Forsyth County	96 CVS 4614		Settled after Jury Trial
Petty v. High Point Bank & Trust	Randolph County	97 CVS 741		Settled
Popkin v. Popkin	Onslow County	92 CVS 2910		Settled
Reeve v. Triad Bank	Guilford County	96 CVS 4695		Settled after Court Opinion
Roberts v. Guy, Onslow Transit	Onslow County	93 CVS 1043		Settled
Robinson v. McMillen Trust	Guilford County	97 CVS 9042		Settled
Royals v. Glenaco	Guilford County	98 CVS 153		Settled
Royals v. Piedmont Electric Repair Co.	Guilford County	97 CVS 720		Judgment Affirmed COA 99609 Cert denied
Sayer v. State Street	Guilford County	96 CVS 6478		Settled
Scott v. Sokolov	Durham County	96 CVS 2748		Settled after Court Opinion
Name of Case	County of Origin	Case Number		Disposition
Shelley v. Cooper	Gaston County	98 CVS 1244		Settled
Smith v. NC Motor Speedway, Inc.	Mecklenburg County	97 CVS 138		Judgment
Southern Furniture Hardware v. BB&T	Catawba County	94 CVS 959		Remanded
Springer-Eubank v. Four County Electric Membership Corp.	New Hanover County	98 CVS 3194		Judgment Affirmed COA
Thomas v. Golding Farms	Guilford County	95 CVS 7323		Settled
WestPoint Stevens, Inc. v. Panda-Rosemary Corp.	Guilford County	99 CVS 9818		Judgment
Wiggins v. Charlotte Brewing Co.	Mecklenburg County	96 CVS 2537		Settled
Whitley v. Wallace	Rowan County	96 CVS 1795		Settled
Wilson Realty and Construction, Inc. v. Asheboro-Randolph Board of Realtors	Randolph County	95 CVS 0482		Settled

B. List of Current Cases

The following list shows the 63 cases that are currently being handled by the Business Court. Of these cases, 44 are active; seven are on appeal, one of which is on appeal after jury trial; four have reached a settlement; and two are stayed. One case is awaiting decision after a non-jury trial; one is partially settled; one is in mediation; six have an ongoing jury trial and one has a jury trial pending.

Name of Case	County of Origin	Case Number	Status of Case
Biemann and Rowell v. The Donohoe Companies	Orange County	99 CVS 9132	On Appeal after Non-Jury Trial
Bruggers v. Eastman Kodak Company	Wake County	97 CVS 1278	Awaiting Settlement Agreement
Name of Case	County of Origin	Case Number	Status of Case
Caraustar Industries v. Georgia-Pacific	Mecklenburg County	00 CVS 12302	Active
Cogburn v. Electrics of Asheville	Buncombe County	00 CVS 2254	Active
Dilworth Heights v. The Boulevard Co.	Mecklenburg County	99 CVS 11552	Active
DKH Corp. v. Rankin Patterson Oil Co.	Buncombe County	95 CVS 2511	On Appeal
Dublin v. UCR	Johnston County	90 CVS 0304	Stayed
Ezzell v. ABT Co., Inc	Onslow County	97 CVS 167	Stayed
First Union Corp. v. Gulf Ins.	Mecklenburg County	00 CVS 3558	Active
Garlock v. Hilliard	Mecklenburg County	00 CVS 1018	Active
Gaynoe v. First Union Corp.	Mcklenburg County	00 CVS 1018	On Appeal
Hinson v. Trigon Healthcare	Cumberland County	00 CVS 4612	Active
In Re Delhaize America	Mecklenburg County	00 CVS 13706	Active
Isasi v. FYI	Forsyth County	97 CVS 6692	On Appeal after Jury Trial
James E. Long, Commissioner of Insurance of NC and Liquidator of International Workers’ Health Guild and Welfare Trust Fund v. Defendants whose file numbers are referenced in case numbers in corresponding third column	Wake County	00 CVS 5828; 00 CVS 7097; 00 CVS 7694; 00 CVS 7695; 00 CVS 7696; 00 CVS 7697; 00 CVS 8441; 00CVS 10862; 00 CVS 11706; 00 CVS 13848; 01 CVS 165; 01 CVS 1843; 01 CVS 168; 01 CVS 169; 01 CVS 170;	Active
Name of Case Continued Long v. International Workers’ Health Guild and Welfare Trust Fund Defendants	County of Origin	Case Number 01 CVS 171; 01 CVS 172; 01 CVS 1842; 01 CVS 1843; 01 CVS 1970; 01 CVS 2135; 01 CVS 2136; 01 CVS 2137; 01 CVS 2138; 01 CVS 2579; 01 CVS 2580; 01 CVS 2581	Status of Case
Massey v. City of Charlotte	Mecklenburg County	99CVS 18764	On Appeal
McNett v. Indian Falls Resort	Transylvania County	99 CVS 76	Awaiting Final Order of Settlement
Novant v. Aetna	Mecklenburg County	98 CVS 12661	Active
Oberlin Capital, LP v. Slavin	Wake County	99 CVS 03447	Active
People Unlimited Consulting, Inc. v. B & A Industries, LLC	Mecklenburg County	98 CVS 16126	Active
Peterson v. Robertson	Forsyth County	95 CVS 3518	Active
Pinkerton v. Elslager	Mecklenburg County	98 CVS 10328	Awaiting Order of Dismissal
Pitts v. American Security Ins. Company and Wachovia Bank of North America, N.A.	Pitt County	96 CVS 658	On Appeal
Polo Ralph Lauren Corp. v. Gulf Ins. Co.	Guilford County	00 CVS 5440	Active
Praxair, Inc. v. Airgas, Inc.,	Mecklenburg County	98 CVS 8571	Active
Rankin & Huwe v. Microsoft Corp.	Wake County	00 CVS 4073	Active
Name of Case	County of Origin	Case Number	Status of Case
Ruff v. Parex Settlement.	New Hanover County	97 CVS 0059	Settlement Pending
Salvatore v. Microsoft Corp.	Lincoln County	99 CVS 1246	Active
Scarvey v. First Federal Savings & Loan Association of Charlotte	Mecklenburg County	98 CVS 204	On Appeal
Sunbelt Rentals v. Head & Engquist Equip.	Mecklenburg County	00 CVS 10358	Active
Staton Cases	Forsyth County	96 CVS 1409	Trial ongoing
Staton	Forsyth County	96 CVS 7224	Trial ongoing
Staton	Forsyth County	96 CVS 7140	Trial ongoing
Staton	Forsyth County	99 CVS 2628	Trial ongoing
Staton	Forsyth County	99 CVS 5156	Trial ongoing
Staton	Forsyth County	00 CVS 2178	Trial ongoing
Tomlin v. Dylan Mortgage Inc.	New Hanover	99 CVS 3551	Active

C. Venue

The following is a list of the counties in which the Business Court cases (both active and closed) originated. The list column is followed by column designating the number of cases assigned to the Business Court from each county and a column stating the percentage of total Business Court cases originating from each county. See also the map on the following page.

COUNTY	NUMBER OF CASES	PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL CASES
Bladen	1	1%
Buncombe	2	2%
Burke	1	1%
Caldwell	1	1%
Catawba	2	2%
Cumberland	1	1%
Durham	3	2%
Forsyth	10	7%
Gaston	3	2%
Guilford	21	16%
Halifax	1	1%
Johnston	1	1%
Lenoir	1	1%
Lincoln	1	1%
Mecklenburg	26	19%
New Hanover	3	2%
Onslow	3	2%
Orange	4	3%
Pitt	1	1%
Randolph	4	3%
Rowan	1	1%
Transylvania	1	1%
Wake	35	27%
Warren	1	1%
Wilkes	1	1%
Total in 25 Counties	129	100 %

Every case is tried in the county in which it was originally filed unless counsel request change of venue. No jury trial has been moved to Guilford County; only three non-jury cases have been transferred to Guilford County, each due to its own unique set of circumstances.

Hearings and other pretrial matters are held where facilities are available and are scheduled for the convenience of the Court and the parties. The Court frequently encounters difficulty obtaining courtroom space in major metropolitan areas on short notice.

14

VII. OPINIONS

The Court is required to write opinions in non-jury matters assigned as Complex Business. In the other Exceptional cases assigned pursuant to Rule 2.1, the decision about whether to write an opinion is in the discretion of the Court. Opinions are generally written where issues are matters of first impression.

A. List of Opinions

The official opinions in the cases listed below are on file in the courthouse of the county of jurisdiction. Electronically formatted copies of these opinions are also posted on the Business Court web site at www.ncbusinesscourt.net. Decisions which have been affirmed or reversed on appeal are noted.

2001

NOVANT HEALTH, INC., ET AL. v. AETNA U.S. HEALTHCARE OF THE CAROLINAS, INC.
2001 NCBC 04 (03/08/01)
98-CVS-12661 (Mecklenburg)

POLO RALPH LAUREN CORP. v. GULF INS. CO.
2001 NCBC 03 (01/31/01)
00-CVS-5440 (Guilford)

CARAUSTAR INDUS., INC. v GEORGIA PACIFIC, INC.
2001 NCBC 02 (01-26-01)
00-CVS-12302 (Mecklenburg)

GAYNOE v. FIRST UNION DIRECT BANK, N.A.,
2001 NCBC 01 (01-18-01)
97-CVS-16536 (Mecklenburg)

2000

GARLOCK v. HILLIARD
2000 NCBC 11 (8-22-00)
00-CVS-1018 (Mecklenburg)

PRAXAIR, INC. v. AIRGAS, INC.
2000 NCBC 10 (8-14-2000)
98-CVS-008571 (Mecklenburg)

TOMLIN v. DYLAN MORTGAGE INC.
2000 NCBC 9 (6-12-00)
99-CVS-3551 (New Hanover)

BIEMANN AND ROWELL CO. v. THE DONOHOE COMPANIES, INC.
2000 NCBC 8 (6-5-00)
99-CVS-9132 (Guilford)

IN RE STUCCO ATTORNEY FEES PETITIONS
2000 NCBC 7 (5-17-00)
96-CVS-5900 (New Hanover)
96-CVS-5901 (New Hanover)
96-CVS-5902 (New Hanover)
96-CVS-5903 (New Hanover)
96-CVS-5904 (New Hanover)
96-CVS-5905 (New Hanover)

OBERLIN CAPITAL, LP v. SLAVIN, et al.
2000 NCBC 6 (4-28-00)
99-CVS-03447 (Wake)

MASSEY v. CITY OF CHARLOTTE
2000 NCBC 5 (4-17-00)
99-CVS-18764 (Mecklenburg)

MASSEY v. CITY OF CHARLOTTE
2000 NCBC 4 (4-17-00)
99-CVS-18764 (Mecklenburg)

BRUGGERS v. EASTMAN KODAK CO., et al.

2000 NCBC 3 (3-17-2000)

97-CVS-11278 (Wake)

SCARVEY v. FIRST FEDERAL SAVINGS & LOAN ASSOCIATION OF CHARLOTTE

2000 NCBC 2 (2-23-2000)

98-CVS-204 (Mecklenburg)

PITTS v. AMERICAN SECURITY INS. CO., et al.
2000 NCBC 1 (2-2-2000)
96-CVS-658 (Pitt)

1999

WESTPOINT STEVENS, INC. v. PANDA-ROSEMARY CORP.
1999 NCBC 11 (12-16-1999)
99-CVS-9818 (Guilford)

LONG v. ABBOTT LABORATORIES, et al.
1999 NCBC 10 (7-30-1999)
97-CVS-8289 (Mecklenburg)

PRAXAIR, INC. v. AIRGAS, INC., et al.
1999 NCBC 9 (10-20-1999)
98-CVS-03194 (New Hanover)

SPRINGER-EUBANK CO., et al. v. FOUR COUNTY ELEC. MEMBERSHIP CORP.
1999 NCBC 8 (10-20-1999)
98-CVS-8571 (Mecklenburg)

Affirmed COA-326

IN RE SENERGY AND THORO CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
1999 NCBC 7 (7-14-1999)
96-CVS-5900 (New Hanover)

RUFF v. PAREX, INC.
1999 NCBC 6 (6-17-1999)
96-CVS-0059 (New Hanover)

PRAXAIR, INC. v. AIRGAS, INC.
1999 NCBC 5 (6-1-1999)

98-CVS-8571 (Mecklenburg)

LUPTON v. BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD
1999 NCBC 4 (6-14-1999)
98-CVS-633 (Orange)

LUPTON v. BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD
GIDUZ v. BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD
1999 NCBC 3 (6-14-1999)
98-CVS-663 (Orange)

ANDREA PETERSON v. M.G. "PAT" ROBERTSON
1999 NCBC 2 (5-25-1999)
95-CVS-3518 (Forsyth)

ROYALS v. PIEDMONT ELECTRIC REPAIR CO.
1999 NCBC 1 (3-3-1999)
97-CVS-720 (Guilford)

1998

GREENE v. SHOEMAKER
1998 NCBC 4 (10-24-1998)
97-CVS-2118 (Wilkes)

BRADLEY V. U.S. PACKAGING, INC., et al.
1998 NCBC 3 (4-9-1998)
95 CVS 8986 (Guilford)
Affirmed COA98-1268

CROWDER CONSTR. CO. v. KISER
1998 NCBC 2 (3-10-1998)
95-CVS-14097 (Mecklenburg)
Affirmed COA98-949

BYERS V. R.E. CARPENTER, JR., et al.
1998 NCBC 1 (3-10-1998)
94 CVS 04889 (Wake)

1997

SMITH v. N.C. MOTOR SPEEDWAY
1997 NCBC 5 (11-12-1997)
97-CVS-9961 (Mecklenburg)
Affirmed COA98-81

CHARLOTTE COPY DATA, INC. v. HABBAL
1997 NCBC 4 (11-11-1997)
96-CVS-694 (Mecklenburg)

BEAM v. WORLDWAY CORP.
1997 NCBC 3 (10-23-1997)
96-CVS-469 (Gaston)

REEVE & ASSOCS. INC. v. UCB
1997 NCBC 2 (10-6-1997)
96-CVS-4695 (Guilford)

WILSON REALTY & CONSTR., INC. v. ASHEBORO-RANDOLPH BOARD OF REALTORS
1997 NCBC 1 (9-30-1997)
95-CVS-482 (Randolph)
Remanded COA 98-1061

1996

SCOTT v. SOKOLOV
1996 NCBC 2 (12-2-1996)
96-CVS-2748 (Durham)

FRAZIER v. BEARD
1996 NCBC 1 (10-24-1996)

94-CVS-2362 (Catawba)
Affirmed COA97-387

B. APPELLATE REVIEW

Currently, decisions of the Business Court are reviewed in the same manner as any other decision in the Superior Court. However, to accomplish the goal of providing more efficient and timely resolution of business disputes, it may be appropriate to consider implementing a similar “fast track” appellate procedure. To have an expedited lower court procedure followed by a one-to two-year wait for the appellate ruling defeats the goal of trying to establish a system for handling corporate disputes equivalent to the Delaware court system.

C. PRECEDENTIAL VALUE

The opinions written in Business Court cases have not been published except electronically. Even if published, they have no value as precedent because neither the Supreme Court nor the General Assembly has enacted a rule or statute dealing with the issue.

VIII. ACHIEVEMENTS

On September 30, 2000, the Business Court was the recipient of one of nine achievement awards which the Foundation for the Improvement of Justice, Inc. presented nationwide in the Year 2000 to encourage improvement in our systems of justice.

In June 2000, the Court was selected for detailed study by the Rand Institute for Civil Justice. The Rand Institute can provide an objective assessment of the advantages of the Business Court technology program. Contact Mr. Nicholas Pace for further information: nickpace@rand.org; 310 393-0411.

The National Judicial College has sent representatives to the Court and has asked Judge Tennille to demonstrate the technology at seminars.

The Japanese government has included the Business Court technology in its study of the potential for creating a paperless court system in Japan.

Wake Forest University Law School replicated the system as the best method to teach its students about the courtroom of the future.

Other counties in North Carolina have patterned courtrooms after the Business Court, and the N.C. Supreme Court is currently considering adoption of its electronic filing system.

The program has spawned pilot projects for Internet-based case management systems.

The Court has sustained enthusiastic support from the North Carolina Bar Association. Over 400 people have been trained in our courtroom on the use of the system.

IX. REPLICATION

From conception, the Business Court has been designed so that it could be easily replicated by other states interested in specialized courts for complex litigation. Use of the technology and the web page were meant to encourage others to use the developments and learn from our experience. For example, the Bar Association assisted the court in drafting a comprehensive set of local rules which are posted on the website for others to use. Those rules govern not only complex litigation but also the challenges created by use of the emerging technologies. Any court adopting the new technologies will benefit from the work that has already gone into the local rules.

The technology used by the Court can be adopted as individual components or as a whole. For example, the courtroom package could be used first and electronic filing added later. The calendaring and clerk programs are easily adaptable for other courts. The basic e-filing system can be converted for use by other government agencies such as utilities commissions, departments of insurance and the secretaries of state.

The only obstacle is the cost involved in purchasing the equipment and software and adapting the same for the particular court where it will be used. The software, while developed in conjunction with the Court, belongs to the developer. As with all new technologies, training is critical. We are developing a film, to be posted on the website, which provides instruction on preparing documents for e-filing, e-filing, and use of the courtroom equipment.

X. FUNDING

The Business Court does not have a separate operating budget. It is a part of the General Court of Justice, Superior Court Division, for the State of North Carolina. As such, the State provides salary and benefits for the judge, a law clerk and an administrative assistant. Expenses of maintaining the existing equipment are paid by the State. Original funding for development of the technology totaled $150,000, of which $105,000 was provided by private foundations and $45,000 by the State. The original funding is completely exhausted. There are no ongoing operating funds available for improvement or expansion of the technology.