Case law

Orlando Residence, Ltd. v. Alliance Hosp. Mgmt., LLC

Supreme Court of North Carolina · Aug 14, 2020

The first and third elements of res judicata are clearly satisfied. It is undisputed that a final judgment was rendered in the Nelson Action. … peace” order enjoining Nelson, his wife, and a business entity found to be the alter ego of Nelson from filing any further legal actions or claims against Orlando without prior approval of the court given Nelson’s “well-established

Lester Brothers, Inc. v. JM THOMPSON COMPANY

261 N.C. 210 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jan 31, 1964

“Parties have the legal right to make their own contract, and if the contract is clearly expressed, it must be enforced as it is written.” Barham v. Davenport, 247 N.C. 575, 578 , 101 S.E. 2d 367 , and cases cited. … The burden of establishing that issue is upon the defendant, the Thompson Company, to establish it by the greater weight of the evidence.” Defendant excepted.

State v. Elliott

360 N.C. 400 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · May 5, 2006

Once the venire is in the courtroom, any juror, though qualified, nevertheless may ask to be excused. … Because we cannot say the trial court clearly abused its discretion in denying defendant’s request, we overrule defendant’s assignment of error.

Medlin v. County Board of Education

167 N.C. 239 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 18, 1914

This was clearly incompetent, as what she had last heard came from an entirely different source, and it was not the subject of proof by reputation. … It is better, even if it be a true deliverance, that it should come after a trial which is clear of any departure from long established principles.

State v. Conner

335 N.C. 618 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Mar 4, 1994

As he entered the store, he recognized the owner of the establishment talking to a white male he did not know. … Only the first six jurors accepted by defendant were “life qualified.”

McCarley v. McCarley

289 N.C. 109 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jan 29, 1976

By such a prayer defendant clearly seeks affirmative relief, which has been defined as “that for which the defendant might maintain an action entirely independent of plaintiff’s claim, and *114 which he might proceed to establish … The only evidence establishing the grounds for divorce came from the defendant who testified in accordance with his counterclaim.

State v. Noland

312 N.C. 1 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Oct 2, 1984

Defendant contends that prior to the guilt-innocence phase of the trial, the trial court erred in “death-qualifying” the jury because a “death-qualified” jury is allegedly prosecution prone, i.e., more likely to convict a … Clearly this constituted some evidence of criminal activity.

State v. Taylor

304 N.C. 249 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 3, 1981

We note at the outset that the witness was never offered as an expert, nor was he qualified as such. … Luginbuhl’s testimony was quite clearly his own opinion, and thus admissible only if he was qualified as an expert witness by the trial court.

Lamb v. Wedgewood South Corp.

308 N.C. 419 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · May 31, 1983

Qualified Personnel, Inc., 294 N.C. 200, 208 , 240 S.E. 2d 338, 344 (1978) (emphasis original); Motyka v. Nappier, 9 N.C. App. 579 , 176 S.E. 2d 858 (1970). … This is a result the Sellers Court clearly intended to avoid.

State v. Wood

306 N.C. 510 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Aug 25, 1982

“Hearsay evidence consists of the offering into evidence of a statement, oral or written, made by a person other than the witness for the purpose of establishing the truth of the matter so stated.” Wilson v. … She was clearly familiar with the records and the system under which they were made and her testimony was used since Dr. McKinley was on vacation at the time of the trial.

Matter of Will of Ridge

302 N.C. 375 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Mar 4, 1981

We fail to find any statutory requirement that a specific finding as to whether or not the case was without substantial merit be made, nor do we find that our case law establishes such a requirement. … The statute does not require the court to award attorneys’ fees in such cases but clearly authorizes the court to do so.

Misenheimer v. Burris

360 N.C. 620 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 17, 2006

. § 1-52(16) establishes what is commonly referred to as the discovery rule, which tolls the running of the statute of limitations for torts resulting in certain latent injuries. … The language and the spirit of the statute suggest the legislature intended to allow an otherwise qualified plaintiff to recover damages after the normal expiration of the statute of limitations if the injury was latent.

Cooper v. Berger

370 N.C. 392 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jan 26, 2018

The Bipartisan State Board established by Session Law 2017-6, which has responsibility for the enforcement of laws governing elections, campaign finance, lobbying, and ethics, clearly performs primarily executive, rather … Moreover, the General Assembly clearly has the authority to establish qualifications for commission membership, to make certain persons ex officio members of the commission, and to mandate that differing policy preferences

Merchants & Planters National Bank of Sherman v. Appleyard

238 N.C. 145 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Sep 23, 1953

It should be noted in the beginning that the. cases .cited and relied on are clearly distinguishable and cannot be considered authoritative on the question here presented. … It came under authority of the “privileges and immunities” provision of Art. IY, sec. 2, of the United States Constitution.

State v. J.C.

Supreme Court of North Carolina · May 10, 2019

The statute contains a number of conditions, including that the qualifying offense not have been: (1) A Class A through G felony . . . . … Opinion of the Court Analysis This case of first impression requires us to apply the plain language of the statutory framework established by the General Assembly for the expunction

Wood v. . Sawyer

61 N.C. 251 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 5, 1867

Indeed, in the cases cited, the wills were established. … shows the confusion which would result from the practice which it seeks to establish.

State v. Moseley

338 N.C. 1 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 3, 1994

Our reading of the transcript reveals that defendant did not establish that Mr. … Davis was fully qualified, as a pathologist, to give such an opinion.

Bissell v. . Bozman

17 N.C. 154 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 5, 1831

Notice does n0 §ood 5 because the party already knew that payment had been made, and no further payment could beobtain-And if it clearly appeared here, that the set-off was just, and that Bissell was aware of it, there would … Bissell did in some waij receive the sum ; and at all events, with the other evidence, establishes the fact to an extent so nearly amounting to a moral certainty, as to leave no ground for impeaching the judgment upon the

Wood v. J. P. Stevens & Co.

297 N.C. 636 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jul 30, 1979

This holding is consistent with the statutory scheme for occupational diseases established by G.S. 97-52. … Similarly, we note that our original Workmen’s Compensation Act was made binding on all qualified employers and employees who failed to give notice of nonacceptance, despite the fact that their employment contracts may have

Gregg v. City of Wilmington

155 N.C. 18 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Apr 19, 1911

It is a well-established rule of law that there can be no contribution or indemnity among were tort feasors. … The principle thus announced qualifies and restrains within just limits the rigor of the rule which forbids recourse between wrongdoers. In the leading case of Lowell v. R.