Case law

In Re Appeal of Parker

191 N.C. App. 313 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jul 15, 2008

However, real property may be taxed at its present-use value, an amount typically lower than its true value, if a taxpayer is able to show that the property qualifies for present-use valuation. N.C. Gen. … When a taxpayer wants his property valued at the lower present-use value, the burden is on the taxpayer to “clearly show that the property comes within one of the classes” eligible for present-use value, N.C. Gen.

State v. Saldana

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Dec 19, 2023

Thus, § 90-96 provides a special form of conditional discharge wherein certain qualifying defendants may, for only their first qualifying offense, plead guilty or no contest, and “[u]pon fulfillment of the terms and conditions … Based upon the record evidence before us, Defendant has not presented sufficient evidence to establish “manifest injustice” in order for his guilty plea under N.C. Gen.

Thompson v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co.

140 N.C. App. 115 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Sep 19, 2000

Salisbury’s IRFFNC policy provided insurance coverage for those situations in which the city had waived its governmental immunity. … The IRFFNC policy section upon which plaintiff relies did not establish an agreement to arbitrate claims, but states only that the definition of “suit” under the policy included “[a]n arbitration proceeding in which such

State v. Everrette

256 N.C. App. 244 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Nov 7, 2017

“An indictment must contain ‘a plain and concise factual statement in each count which, . . . asserts facts supporting every element of a criminal offense . . . with sufficient precision clearly to apprise the defendant … Despite the Jones Court relying on established precedent that an indictment alleging money was obtained must specify its amount, the Ricks panel held that an indictment merely describing an unspecified “quantity of U.S

Preslar v. Cannon Mills Co.

80 N.C. App. 610 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · May 20, 1986

You have been found medically qualified for employment in a dust environment and to be able to wear a respirator when required. According to Mr. Preslar, however, when he kept an appointment with Dr. … Specifically, the Hilliard Court, applying the principle established in Little v.

State v. Steen

264 N.C. App. 566 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Mar 19, 2019

Such testimony clearly constitutes substantial evidence to support an instruction that hands and arms were used as weapons during the attack on her. … In finding Defendant guilty, the jury clearly determined that her identification of Defendant was reliable.

Leeuwenburg v. Waterway Investment Ltd. Partnership

115 N.C. App. 541 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jul 19, 1994

This is especially true where a statute establishes, as here, a procedure whereby matters of regulation and control are first addressed by commissions or agencies particularly qualified for the purpose. … However, had plaintiff followed the appropriate administrative procedures prescribed by G.S. § 113A-121.1, the propriety of the challenged permit would clearly have been subject to judicial review.

Texfi Industries, Inc. v. City of Fayetteville

44 N.C. App. 269 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Dec 18, 1979

Such a potential result would clearly be in contravention of the principle that "a State may not dilute a person's vote to give weight to other interests." Evans v. … Under North Carolina law, property interests alone cannot establish voting rights.

State v. Faulkner

250 N.C. App. 412 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Nov 15, 2016

The trial court informed defendant that if he were indigent he would qualify for court-appointed counsel and that he also could hire an attorney or represent himself. … In response, defendant “clearly and unequivocally” asked to represent himself.

State v. McGrady

232 N.C. App. 95 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jan 21, 2014

Therm- O-Disc, Inc., 137 F.3d 780 (4th Cir. 1998) (“Daubert clearly contemplates the vesting of significant discretion in the district court with regard to the decision … Brittain clearly stated that the source of the decedent’s anger was not  -29- Defendant and that Defendant was not even discussed.

State v. Hurt

208 N.C. App. 1 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Nov 16, 2010

Thus, Barker’s initial testimony as to the results was clearly a mere recitation of the findings contained in Todd’s lab report. … We note that our holding has no effect on the established inapplicability of other evidence rules at sentencing, nor do we hold or suggest that they should apply.

State v. Benitez

810 S.E.2d 781 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Feb 6, 2018

If, in fact, respondent qualified only as a caretaker, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-1002 does not grant him a right to appeal. … The concept of in loco parentis has been addressed in the context of whether parental immunity exists in tort actions. For example, Liner v. Brown, 117 N.C.

Shamley v. Shamley

117 N.C. App. 175 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Dec 6, 1994

This affidavit clearly supports the findings that plaintiff purchased land and constructed a home in North Carolina without defendant’s participation and that the property was titled in joint names without defendant’s presence … Qualified Personnel, Inc., 32 N.C. App. 548, 550 , 233 S.E.2d 76, 78 (1977) (a new judge can hear a party’s motion for rehearing to set aside a judgment if the motion is proper and authorized under Rule 60).

Coastal Leasing Corp. v. O'NEAL

103 N.C. App. 230 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jun 18, 1991

. § 25-2-103(l)(d) but it may also qualify as a “merchant” under the definition of that term in N.C.G.S. § 25-2-104(1), imposing on it the obligation that its goods conform to the implied warranty of merchantability, absent … Supp. 1990) (“operative facts in a warranty action may be established by circumstantial evidence”); 67A Am. Jur. 2d Sales § 789 & nn.48-49 (1985).

Middleton v. Russell Group, Ltd.

126 N.C. App. 1 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Apr 15, 1997

This clearly was not a permissible justification. See Massachusetts Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Russell, 473 U.S. 134, 144 , 87 L. … Co., 801 F.2d 659, 600 (4th Cir. 1986) (“ERISA clearly preempts [plaintiffs] common law claims of breach of contract and estoppel.”).

Lenins v. K-Mart Corp.

98 N.C. App. 590 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jun 5, 1990

Rule 51, however, clearly refers to the judge who gives an opinion about a “fact” and whether or not that fact has been “fully or sufficiently proved.” … Lenins alleges that a specific jury instruction “makes even a wrongful arrest . . . immune from suit ... if done ‘politely’ or ‘reasonably.’ ” In this assignment of error, plaintiff refers only to the proposed instruction

Lee v. Lee

167 N.C. App. 250 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Dec 7, 2004

None of the evidence before the trial court addressed the issue of surrender fees, nor established the lack of tax consequences. … “Although Rule 60(a) clearly grants the authority to the trial court to make clerical corrections, our appellate courts have consistently rejected attempts to change substantive provisions under the guise of making clerical

Stowe v. Stowe

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jul 7, 2020

Patton, 318 N.C. 404, 406, 348 S.E.2d 593, 595 (1986) (“the trial court should make specific findings regarding the value of a spouse’s professional practice and the existence and value of its goodwill, and should clearly … He was qualified as a CPA. He’s not establishing appropriate methodology. And based on [N.C. Gen.

Edwards v. Pitt County Health Director

219 N.C. App. 452 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Mar 20, 2012

Morrow, sent notices of violation to Petitioners George Beaman, Benjamin Edwards, and Lynn Owens (“Petitioners”), the owners of Club 519, 5th Street Distillery, Mac Billiards, and Live (the “establishments”), citing the establishments … Clearly, then, the drafters of the smoking ban’s private club exception intended that all clubs qualifying under that exception would be nonprofit clubs.

State v. Jones

67 N.C. App. 413 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Apr 3, 1984

Qualified Personnel, Inc., 294 N.C. 200 , 240 S.E.2d 338 (1978). … The appellate files in this very case clearly demonstrate the fallacy of this argument.