Supreme Court of North Carolina.
MARTIN MARIETTA CORPORATION, Martin Marietta Aggregates, and John
F. Long, Jr.
v.
WAKE STONE CORPORATION, and Thomas B. Oxholm.
No. 390A93.
Feb. 10, 1995.
Mining company brought action against
competitor, alleging that competitor's statements concerning mining company's
business were libelous and constituted unfair and deceptive trade
practices. The Superior Court, Wake
County, A. Leon Stanback, Jr., J., granted summary judgment in favor of
competitor. The Court of Appeals, 111
N.C.App. 269, 432 S.E.2d 428, reversed summary
judgment on unfair or deceptive trade practices claim, and competitor
appealed. The Supreme Court held that: (1) record contained forecast of evidence
from which jury could find that competitor made and distributed statements
either knowingly or in reckless disregard of truth, which were both false and
designed to injure or destroy company's business and thus eliminate competition
from area, and (2) such statements, if made, were not constitutionally
privileged and violated unfair competition statutes.
West Headnotes
[1] Trade Regulation 
864
Summary
judgment for competitor on company's unfair and deceptive trade practices claim
was improper, as record contained forecast of evidence from which jury could
find that competitor made and distributed statements either knowingly or in
reckless disregard of truth, which were both false and designed to injure or
destroy company's business and thus eliminate competition from area.
[2] Libel and Slander 
9(1)
[2] Trade
Regulation 
862.1
If
company's competitor made and distributed statements either knowingly or in reckless disregard of truth, which were both
false and designed to injure or destroy company's business and thus eliminate
competition from area, such statements did not enjoy constitutional privilege,
were "unfair" within meaning and intent of unfair competition statute,
and were unlawful under statute prohibiting willful destruction of another's
business. U.S.C.A.
Const.Amend. 1;
G.S.
§ § 75-1.1,
75-5(b)(3).
**146 *602 Appeal by defendants
pursuant to N.C.G.S.
§ 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.
Petree Stockton, L.L.P. by Ralph
M. Stockton, Jr., Jeffrey
C. Howard, and Rodrick
J. Enns, Winston"S-lem , for plaintiffs-appellees.
McMillan, Kimzey & Smith by James
M. Kimzey and Katherine
E. Jean, Raleigh, for defendants-appellants.
Martha
A. Geer, Raleigh, for the American Civil
Liberties Union of North Carolina Legal Foundation, amicus curiae.
*603 PER CURIAM.
[1][2] Having 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' business in Nash County, thereby eliminating competition in that
area. Such statements do not enjoy
constitutional protection. **147McDonald
v. Smith,
472 U.S. 479, 105 S.Ct. 2787, 86
L.Ed.2d 384 (1985). They are "unfair" within the meaning and intent of N.C.G.S.
§ 75-1.1
and unlawful under the prohibitions contained in N.C.G.S.
§ 75-5(b)(3). Accordingly, the Court of
Appeals was correct in reversing the trial court's grant of defendants' motion
for summary judgment on plaintiffs' unfair or deceptive trade practice
claim. The decision of the Court of
Appeals is therefore
AFFIRMED.
ORR, J., did not participate in the consideration or decision
of this case.
453 S.E.2d
146, 339 N.C. 602
END OF
DOCUMENT