The case involved the Carolina Cougars professional basketball team seeking to enjoin player William Cunningham from performing for any other team, based on three-year contracts the team acquired that were signed in August 1969 and scheduled to begin in October 1971. The court denied the requested injunction and dismissed the complaint. It found that the Cougars had engaged in improper conduct by interfering with Cunningham's existing contract with the Philadelphia 76ers and offering him payment to sit out a season, and had also materially breached the contracts by failing to pay a signing bonus when due. Under principles of equity, these actions barred the relief sought regardless of any misconduct by the defendant or the prior team.
The case involved Stella Horton, a black teacher, and other plaintiffs alleging that the Orange County Board of Education terminated her employment after the 1968-1969 school year due to her race and without due process, and that the board discriminated against black students by arbitrarily closing the all-black Cedar Grove Elementary School under a desegregation plan. The court ruled that the board's non-renewal of Horton's contract was neither arbitrary, capricious, nor racially motivated, and that its policies on hiring, assigning, and terminating black teachers were not discriminatory; it also held that closing the school was lawful. The core reasoning was that the board's actions were taken to achieve total school integration in a plan approved by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, with no credible evidence of invidious racial discrimination under the Fourteenth Amendment, consistent with precedents like Allen v. Asheville City Board of Education.
This case involved a widow's lawsuit against Minnesota Mutual Life Insurance Company to recover $20,000 in benefits under a credit life insurance policy issued on her late husband's life in connection with a mortgage loan from the Federal Land Bank. The policy application contained false answers to health questions, but the court found these were inserted by the insurer's agent without consulting or informing the applicant, who had limited education and no knowledge of the inaccuracies. The court decided that the insurer was required to pay the claim, ruling that it was estopped from denying coverage based on the misrepresentations because its agent bore responsibility for completing the application. The core reasoning was that under North Carolina law, an insurer cannot rely on false statements in an application when its own agent supplied the answers without the insured's input or awareness.
The case involved three Black female plaintiffs suing Cone Mills Corporation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, alleging that the company's hiring practices at its Eno Plant in North Carolina discriminated against Negro females by limiting their equal employment opportunities. The court, after a bench trial, found that the defendant had engaged in a pattern and practice of unlawful discrimination, as no Black women had been hired despite applications and company policies nominally prohibiting race-based distinctions, with practices such as an inaccessible application renewal requirement effectively excluding them. The court concluded it had jurisdiction, certified the case as a class action, and ordered injunctive relief to eliminate the discriminatory practices going forward. However, it denied back pay and attorney fees, reasoning that the plaintiffs' primary motive was to test the practices rather than obtain employment and that no vacancies existed at the time of their applications.
The case involved a lawsuit by an assistant professor against university students for alleged libelous statements about his professional competence, with jurisdiction claimed under diversity of citizenship. The court examined whether the plaintiff was domiciled in Texas or North Carolina, considering his five-and-a-half years of residence, voting history, employment, and other factors. It concluded that the plaintiff was domiciled in North Carolina at the time the action was filed, resulting in a lack of diversity between the parties. Consequently, the court dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction, without prejudice to refiling in a competent court.
The case involved plaintiffs Minnesota Muskies, Inc. and its assignee Florida Professional Sports, Inc. seeking to enjoin basketball player Louis C. Hudson from playing for any professional team other than theirs pursuant to a May 1967 contract, despite Hudson's earlier NBA contract with the St. Louis Hawks that included a reserve clause. The court denied the requested negative injunctive relief after reviewing the stipulated facts and record. It reasoned that the Muskies had engaged in inequitable conduct by knowingly signing Hudson to a conflicting contract and attempting to nullify the prior agreement dishonestly, violating the equitable principle that a party seeking relief must come to court with clean hands, which barred relief irrespective of any similar conduct by St. Louis.