Case law

State v. Jaynes

342 N.C. 249 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 8, 1995

Jaynes, he would be given any quasi immunity, full immunity or any sentencing concessions. 15. That at no time did Mr. … It is well established that when a trial court’s findings of fact are supported by competent evidence, even though conflicting, such findings are binding on appeal. State v.

State v. Hooks

353 N.C. 629 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jul 20, 2001

The length of time during which the victim fears for his life may qualify despite any brevity. See State v. … As discussed above the evidence in this case did not establish a mental or emotional disturbance supporting submission of the (f)(2) mitigator.

State v. Flowers

347 N.C. 1 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Sep 5, 1997

The trial court explained to the defendant that two experienced, well-qualified attorneys had been appointed to his case, and that he could choose either to accept them or represent himself. … It is well established that control of counsel’s arguments is left largely to the discretion of the trial court. State v. Johnson, 298 N.C. 355, 368 , 259 S.E.2d 752, 761 (1979).

State v. Crandell

322 N.C. 487 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 30, 1988

In Batson the Supreme Court established a three-part test for determining whether a defendant has established a prima facie case of purposeful discrimination: To establish such a case, the defendant first must show that he … The items were unrelated to this case and therefore did not qualify as relevant evidence under Rule 401. Because they were not relevant, they were not admissible. N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 402 (1986).

State v. Powell

340 N.C. 674 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jul 28, 1995

Additionally, the evidence did not clearly establish whether defendant or his partner, who received a life sentence, acted as the ringleader. … The evidence did not clearly establish the circumstances of the crime, and the victim died shortly after the shooting.

Owens v. Pepsi Cola Bottling Co.

330 N.C. 666 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jan 27, 1992

Defendant argued that such restrictions are sanctioned by the Soft Drink Act and therefore immune from scrutiny under North Carolina law. … Clearly then, bottlers should not be required to rely on their retail customers to prevent transshipping.

In re H.B.

Supreme Court of North Carolina · Apr 28, 2023

We therefore modify this portion of the Court of Appeals’ decision as contrary to well-established law. … In like fashion, the trial court’s Finding of Fact 15—the entry which attracts the majority’s primary focus—is similarly lacking in that it is bereft of the necessary emphasized features which properly qualify it to be

Cmty. Success Initiative v. Moore

Supreme Court of North Carolina · Apr 28, 2023

Although plaintiff-felons have standing, some plaintiff-organizations clearly do not. … The amended complaint’s factual allegations are sufficient, however, to show that the North Carolina NAACP qualifies under River Birch to sue on behalf of its members.

Hest Technologies, Inc. v. State ex rel. Perdue

366 N.C. 289 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 14, 2012

Sweepstakes participants obtain entries from a predetermined, finite pool of entries — some of which are associated with a prize value and some of which are not — either after a qualifying purchase of plaintiffs’ products … Operating or placing into operation an electronic machiné is clearly conduct, not speech.

Godfrey v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment of Union County

317 N.C. 51 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 3, 1986

The 11 July 1983 order of the Board clearly states that it purported to allow continuance of the “nonconforming situation” “under Section 70.2.” … Succinctly stated, “[a] lawfully established nonconforming use is a vested right and is entitled to constitutional protection.” 4 E. Yokley, Zoning Law and Practice § 22-3 (4th ed. 1979).

State v. Vickers

274 N.C. 311 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Oct 9, 1968

Barber, supra, Bobbitt, J., speaking for the Court, clearly *486 stated legal principles pertinent to decision of instant case, as: "1. … statement of my own free will, and accord, and after having been advised as to the nature of the charges against me, and of my right to interview an attorney before making this statement, and no threats, promises of reward or immunity

Lake v. State Health Plan for Tchrs. & State Emps.

Supreme Court of North Carolina · Mar 11, 2022

Sess. 1982) 288, 289-311 (Establishing Act). … The moving party has the burden of clearly establishing the lack of triable issue, and his papers are carefully scrutinized and those of the opposing party are

In Re Inquiry Concerning a Judge No. 53 Peoples

296 N.C. 109 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 29, 1978

Since 1 January 1973, the effective date of the act establishing the Judicial Standards Commission (1971 N.C. Sess. … “Second, with respect to any office that is filled by election by the people, any person who is not qualified to vote in an election for that office.

State v. Giese

Supreme Court of North Carolina · May 23, 2024

And for the same reason, it may “unnecessarily interfere” with “the system established by our Constitution.” Id. at 600. … Camacho clearly forecloses that latter rationale. State v.

State v. Richardson

Supreme Court of North Carolina · Sep 1, 2023

be disturbed unless it is “clearly erroneous.” … Giving the appropriate deference to the trial court’s ruling, we do not believe that defendant has established that the trial court’s decision was “clearly erroneous.”

Poole v. . Thompson

183 N.C. 589 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · May 24, 1922

marked "Exhibit A," and made a part thereof; that said last will and testament was duly admitted to probate in the surrogate's court in the State of New York, and thereafter, to wit, on 3 August, 1903, Isabella Fisher duly qualified … On these facts being established, and the court having jurisdiction of the parties and the property, we are of opinion that the judgment confirming and authorizing the sale and directing that the fund be properly safeguarded

Marshall v. Lovelass

1 N.C. 217 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 15, 1801

It should be made subservient to the purposes of justice, while it protects the immunities of the state; and such of its consequences as promote these objects, should be adopted with the doctrine itself. … This decision is clearly justified by the reasons on which the rule is founded.

State v. Waycaster

Supreme Court of North Carolina · Aug 14, 2020

For this reason, he expressed his belief that the ACIS printout did not qualify as admissible secondary evidence pursuant to Rule 1005 of the North Carolina Rules of Evidence. … Clearly the conviction could have been proven by the deputy’s testimony as to his own personal knowledge or by defendant’s admission.

State v. Richardson

Supreme Court of North Carolina · Sep 1, 2023

be disturbed unless it is “clearly erroneous.” … Giving the appropriate deference to the trial court’s ruling, we do not believe that defendant has established that the trial court’s decision was “clearly erroneous.”

State v. Davis

349 N.C. 1 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Oct 9, 1998

The fact that Balogh terminated defendant’s employment two days prior to the murder is clearly relevant to show the motive for the crime. … It was not error for the trial court to qualify what lack of capacity meant in this context.