Case law

State v. Hobbs

Supreme Court of North Carolina · May 1, 2020

Hobbs had established a prima facie case was not moot. Further, the Court of Appeals erred as a matter of law and the trial court clearly erred in ruling that Mr. … The Court of Appeals reiterated this Court’s well-established principle that, “[w]here there are two permissible views of the evidence, the fact finder’s choice between them cannot be clearly erroneous.” Id.

Byerly v. Tolbert

250 N.C. 27 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Apr 8, 1959

These statutory provisions clearly assume and contemplate that an after-born child of an intestate shares in tire estate, both real and personal, of such intestate. No provision of G.S. … Whether, -according to the l-aws of nature, the term of pregnancy may extend 322 days or more from the moment of -conception, is a proper subject of testimony by qualified medical experts.

Elmore v. . R. R.

189 N.C. 658 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · May 13, 1925

This rule is, however, confined to cases in which the public service or the administration of justice requires complete immunity — for example, words spoken in legislative bodies, in debates, etc., in reports of military … Carr , 178 N.C. p. 580 , it was said: "in cases of qualified privilege the falsehood of the charge will not of itself be sufficient to establish malice, for there is a presumption that the publication was made bona fide.

State v. Phifer

290 N.C. 203 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 17, 1976

His employment and experience qualified him to make this comparison. See State v. Crowder, supra. … Defendants in present case did not request a finding by the trial court that either the witness Bailey or the witness Young was qualified as an expert.

Long v. Fowler

Supreme Court of North Carolina · Oct 17, 2025

Only trained, qualified installers and service mechanics should . . . service this equipment.” … Long’s estate, the forecast evidence establishes a genuine issue of material fact regarding the foreseeability of Mr. Long’s injury.

Liles v. . Rogers

113 N.C. 197 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Sep 5, 1893

This principle is well established in this State, and is fully sustained by the English decisions prior to the enactment of the Mercantile Law Amendment Act, 19 and 20 Viet. Thus in Copes v. … Very clearly not, and such a case differs in nothing, we think, from the case before us.

State v. Lancaster

Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 15, 2023

The Court clearly stated earlier in the opinion that an -10-  STATE V. … Defendant’s reading of Dawson would not only require that the crime occur about a public highway, but also that the only weapons which would qualify to establish the crime are “pistols and rifles.”

Gaster v. Goodwin

259 N.C. 676 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 14, 1963

The court below found as a fact that Denson “did in apt time employ duly licensed and qualified attorney to represent his interest; that he communicated to his attorney all of those matters and things relevant to his defense … At the hearing on the motion Denson introduced affidavits which tend to establish the following facts (on this record undisputed): The attorney, Robert W.

State v. Cross

345 N.C. 713 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Apr 11, 1997

Regarding the sufficiency of fingerprint evidence to withstand a motion to dismiss, this Court has stated: [T]he rule that testimony by a qualified expert that fingerprints found at the scene of the crime correspond with … Viewed in the light most favorable to the State,- the evidence was clearly sufficient to establish that the defendant’s fingerprint on the victim’s vehicle could only have been impressed at the time the crime was committed

Wachovia Bank & Trust Co. v. Green

239 N.C. 612 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Mar 17, 1954

In our opinion tbe facts in those cases are clearly distinguishable from those in tbe instant case. In Smyth v. McKissick, supra, Ellison A. … Hicks, established twelve equal and separate residuary Trusts for certain of his nieces and nephews for and during their respective lives.

State v. Davis

229 N.C. 386 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 3, 1948

This language was retained in the Revised Statutes of 1836, but in the Revised Code of 1854 the qualifying clause was modified to provide “that the admissions or confessions of one shall not be received in evidence against … Evidence is the means whereby the truth of a matter may he established, and its production should not be barred unless clearly prohibited by statute, or in the interest of a well-defined public policy.

State v. Graham

309 N.C. 587 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 3, 1983

. *589 The evidence clearly revealed that the defendant, when first questioned prior to his arrest, denied any involvement in the break-ins. … Clearly the conviction could have been proven by the deputy’s testimony as to his own personal knowledge or by defendant’s admission.

Spruill v. Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance

120 N.C. 141 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Feb 5, 1897

The former case, emphasized by the qualified assent of Justice Reade and the unqualified dissent of Justice Bynum, cites with the wmrmest approval the following quotation from the opinion of Welles, J., delivered in the English … It is further held that where the words of a policy do not clearly indicate the intention of the parties, the courts should lean to that interpretation which is most favorable to the assured.

State v. McDaniel

274 N.C. 574 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 11, 1968

In our former opinion in this case, 272 N.C. 556 , 158 S.E. 2d 874 , we held: 1: It was error to admit, over objection, a statement by the deceased, not made in the presence of the defendant and not qualifying as a dying … The whole purpose of his testimony was to establish that the stabbing was justified because it was done in self defense.

State v. Ramseur

Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 5, 2020

As an initial matter, it is well established that “a statute is presumed to have prospective effect only and should not be construed to have a retroactive application unless such an intent is clearly expressed or arises … The Supreme Court, however, described the change as “clearly procedural.

State v. Murphy

321 N.C. 72 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 5, 1987

While clearly hearsay, we hold Joseph’s testimony admissible under the excited utterance exception. … His uncontradicted testimony establishes that the victim spoke while under the stress of excitement. Clearly, the statement related to a startling event.

Hajmm Co. v. House of Raeford Farms, Inc.

328 N.C. 578 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · May 2, 1991

James Baarda was qualified as an expert witness on equity redemption by agricultural cooperatives. … In less clearly defined situations the question whether a fiduciary relationship exists is more open and depends ultimately on the circumstances.

Nova University v. Board of Governors of the University of North Carolina

305 N.C. 156 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Mar 3, 1982

(b) The Board of Governors, under such standards as it shall establish, may issue its license to confer degrees in such form as it may prescribe to a nonpublic educational institution established in this State after December … This language clearly evinces a legislative concern over the quality of a program leading to the conferral of a degree.

State v. Fincher

309 N.C. 1 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Aug 9, 1983

“[A] blanket prohibition against the taking of voluntary statements or a permanent immunity from further interrogation, regardless of the circumstances, would transform the Miranda safeguards into wholly irrational obstacles … John Wheeler was qualified as an expert in psychological evaluation and testing and testified on voir dire as to defendant’s mental capabilities. At the request of defendant’s attorney, Dr.

State v. Ramseur

Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 5, 2020

As an initial matter, it is well established that “a statute is presumed to have prospective effect only and should not be construed to have a retroactive application unless such an intent is clearly expressed or arises … The Supreme Court, however, described the change as “clearly procedural.