ruling on immunity means that Perry has no adequate state remedy under Corum and its progeny, Perry has failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether defendants violated the law of the land clause in the North Carolina Constitution. Simply put, as explained in resolving count four, Perry’s failure to raise a genuine issue of material fact on whether defendants violated the due process clause in the federal Constitution defeats her claim under the law of the land clause of the North Carolina Constitution. See, e.g., Rhyne v. K-Mart Corp., 358 N.C. 160, 180, 594 S.E.2d 1, 15 (2004); State v. Guice, 141 N.C.App. 177, 186-88, 541 S.E.2d 474, 480-81 (2000); see also Tri Cnty. Paving, Inc. v. Ashe Cnty., 281 F.3d 430, 435 n. 6 (4th Cir.2002); Moua, 2012 WL 252648, at *12 (<HOLDING>). Thus, the court grants summary judgment to
holding that violation of state law was not a per se constitutional violation holding that a foreign subsidiary that is not registered to do business in north carolina has no place of business employees or bank accounts in north carolina does not design manufacture or advertise its products in north carolina and does not solicit business in north carolina cannot be subject to personal jurisdiction in north carolina even if some of the companys products do enter north carolina through the stream of commerce recognizing that plaintiff failed to prove a violation of the law of the land clause in the north carolina constitution because pjlaintiffs were unable to establish a federal due process violation and the constitutional claims state and federal are analyzed the same way recognizing that plaintiff can bring action under due process clause of state constitution holding that the use requirement exists for  proposed state law claims and is analyzed in the same manner as under the federal claims