{
  "id": 2557199,
  "name": "MARTIN MARIETTA CORPORATION, MARTIN MARIETTA AGGREGATES, and JOHN F. LONG, JR. v. WAKE STONE CORPORATION, and THOMAS B. OXHOLM",
  "name_abbreviation": "Martin Marietta Corp. v. Wake Stone Corp.",
  "decision_date": "1995-02-10",
  "docket_number": "No. 390A93",
  "first_page": "602",
  "last_page": "603",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "339 N.C. 602"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C.",
    "id": 9292,
    "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "432 S.E.2d 428",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1993,
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "111 N.C. App. 269",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8521696
      ],
      "year": 1993,
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/111/0269-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "89 ALR3d 449",
      "category": "reporters:specialty",
      "reporter": "A.L.R. 3d",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "472 U.S. 479",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        1512567
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1985,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/472/0479-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 208,
    "char_count": 2858,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.71,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 9.76372478806893e-08,
      "percentile": 0.5313931429979122
    },
    "sha256": "85245e236b704ab10e9ca41ab71f7ec4865b6ef54791036b0b8864e28bb6a8db",
    "simhash": "1:3bf46626bf59d952",
    "word_count": 445
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:14:35.214532+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Justice Orr did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "MARTIN MARIETTA CORPORATION, MARTIN MARIETTA AGGREGATES, and JOHN F. LONG, JR. v. WAKE STONE CORPORATION, and THOMAS B. OXHOLM"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PER CURIAM.\nHaving reviewed the record, briefs and oral arguments of the parties, the Court concludes that the record contains a forecast of evidence from which a jury could find that defendants knowingly, or in reckless disregard of the truth, made and distributed statements which were both false and designed to injure or destroy plaintiffs\u2019 business in Nash County, thereby eliminating competition in that area. Such statements do not enjoy constitutional protection. McDonald v. Smith, 472 U.S. 479, 86 L. Ed. 2d 384 (1985). They are \u201cunfair\u201d within the meaning and intent of N.C.G.S. \u00a7 75-1.1 and unlawful under the prohibitions contained in N.C.G.S. \u00a7 75-5(3). Accordingly, the Court of Appeals was correct in reversing the trial court\u2019s grant of defendants\u2019 motion for summary judgment on plaintiffs\u2019 unfair or deceptive trade practice claim. The decision of the Court of Appeals is therefore\nAFFIRMED.\nJustice Orr did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PER CURIAM."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Petree Stockton, L.L.P, by Ralph M. Stockton, Jr., Jeffrey C. Howard, and Rodrick J. Enns, for plaintiff-appellees.",
      "McMillan, Kimzey & Smith, by James M. Kimzey and Katherine E. Jean, for defendant-appellants.",
      "Martha A. Geer for the American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina Legal Foundation, amicus curiae."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "MARTIN MARIETTA CORPORATION, MARTIN MARIETTA AGGREGATES, and JOHN F. LONG, JR. v. WAKE STONE CORPORATION, and THOMAS B. OXHOLM\nNo. 390A93\n(Filed 10 February 1995)\nUnfair Competition or Trade Practices \u00a7 39 (NCI4th)\u2014 false statements \u2014 intent to injure plaintiffs\u2019 business \u2014 unfair practices\nThe Court of Appeals correctly reversed the trial court\u2019s grant of defendants\u2019 motion for summary judgment on plaintiffs\u2019 unfair or deceptive practices claim where the record contains a forecast of evidence from which a jury could find that defendants knowingly, or in reckless disregard of the truth, made and distributed statements which were both false and designed to injure or destroy plaintiffs\u2019 business in Nash County, thereby eliminating competition in that area, since such statements are \u201cunfair\u201d within the meaning and intent of N.C.G.S. \u00a7 75-1.1 and unlawful under the prohibitions contained in N.C.G.S. \u00a7 75-5(3).\nAm Jur 2d, Monopolies, Restraints of Trade, and Unfair Trade Practices \u00a7 735.\nPractices forbidden by state deceptive trade practice and consumer protection acts. 89 ALR3d 449.\nJustice Orr did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.\nAppeal by defendants pursuant to N.C.G.S. \u00a7 7A-30(1) (substantial constitutional question) from a decision of the Court of Appeals, 111 N.C. App. 269, 432 S.E.2d 428 (1993), affirming in part and reversing in part a summary judgment in favor of defendants entered on 26 September 1991 by Stanback, J., in Superior Court, Wake County. Heard in the Supreme Court 12 January 1995.\nPetree Stockton, L.L.P, by Ralph M. Stockton, Jr., Jeffrey C. Howard, and Rodrick J. Enns, for plaintiff-appellees.\nMcMillan, Kimzey & Smith, by James M. Kimzey and Katherine E. Jean, for defendant-appellants.\nMartha A. Geer for the American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina Legal Foundation, amicus curiae."
  },
  "file_name": "0602-01",
  "first_page_order": 640,
  "last_page_order": 641
}