Case law

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.

Church v. Madison County Board of Education

31 N.C. App. 641 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Dec 15, 1976

Plaintiff’s complaint clearly reveals that, until the time this lawsuit was instituted, she had proceeded under the Tenure Act. … Legislation of the type outlined by G.S. 115-142 has become necessary in many fields where matters of regulation and control may, and must, be handled by appropriate commissions and agencies that are particularly qualified

Alford v. Catalytica Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

150 N.C. App. 489 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jun 4, 2002

We find this statement to be qualified by the language "in the true sense of that term." Plaintiffs argue, and the dissent asserts, that "substantial certainty" originates in negligence. … The intent required for battery may be established by grossly or culpably negligent conduct, see Jenkins v.

State v. Murphy

100 N.C. App. 33 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Aug 7, 1990

While this testimony clearly suggests that the victim’s father masturbated in her presence, there is no evidence that he attempted any of the sexual acts enumerated by the statute. … Batton had seen the victim on two occasions and was qualified by the court as an expert in clinical psychology.

State v. Louchheim

36 N.C. App. 271 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · May 16, 1978

Ceccolini, --- U.S. ---, 98 S.Ct. ---, 55 L.Ed. 2d 268 (21 March 1978), which qualified the “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine of Wong Sun v. … Dickerson, Inc., 257 N.C. 522 , 126 S.E. 2d 500 (1962), Justice Sharp (now Chief Justice), for the Court wrote: “Entries in the books of the defendant were clearly admissible against it as admissions.

Gregory v. Penland

179 N.C. App. 505 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Sep 19, 2006

App. at 658 , 169 S.E.2d at 37 (“We think the rationale of the opinion in Bowen ... is clearly applicable here.”). The issue of one satisfaction of judgments is not present in this case. … Stat. § 166A-14(a), the State has maintained its sovereign immunity with respect to emergency management operations.

Griffith v. North Carolina Department of Correction

210 N.C. App. 544 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Apr 5, 2011

. § 1A-1, Rule 12(b)(6), insufficiency of service of process, and sovereign immunity. Shortly thereafter, on 7 September 2009, plaintiff filed both a request for admissions and a request for documents. … However, if a literal reading of the statutory language “yields absurd results ... or contravenes clearly expressed legislative intent, ‘the reason and purpose of the law shall control and the strict letter thereof shall

Sellers v. Lithium Corp.

94 N.C. App. 575 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jul 5, 1989

To establish a prima facie case for compensation under G.S. 97-53(28) plaintiff must prove (1) loss of hearing in both ears which *578 was (2) caused by harmful noise in his work environment. McCuiston v. … The expert medical testimony plaintiff cites to substantiate that hearing loss was caused by noise levels between 1971 and 1977 is subsequently qualified for the period of time after 1974 when the facts of the plaintiffs

GUILFORD COUNTY CHILD SUP. ENF. v. Davis

473 S.E.2d 640 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Aug 6, 1996

The divorce complaint filed *643 in this case clearly relies on North Carolina General Statutes Section 50-6 as the grounds for seeking a final judgment of divorce, and was granted solely on that basis. … The presumption of the legitimacy of a child born in wedlock is rebuttable, and may be rebutted by competent evidence resulting from a blood grouping test administered by a qualified physician or agency. See Wright v.

In Re the Appeal of R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.

73 N.C. App. 475 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Mar 19, 1985

Reynolds Tobacco Company is a New Jersey corporation qualified to do business in North Carolina with its principal offices in Winston-Salem. … Its objective was to help establish the United States as a center of world commerce.

Matter of Moses H. Cone Memorial Hosp.

113 N.C. App. 562 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Feb 15, 1994

The Commission in its conclusions of law concluded that “The Hospital [taxpayer] failed to establish, by the greater *573 weight of the evidence or by any stipulated facts, that the subject property was owned by a qualifying … Property may qualify for a charitable exemption in Illinois if the property is used exclusively for charitable purposes.

Boyland v. Southern Structures, Inc.

172 N.C. App. 108 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Aug 2, 2005

Upon review of the claim, the ESC adjudicator concluded that petitioner was qualified for benefits. Employer appealed the ruling to an ESC appeals referee. … The essence of the statute is that if an employer establishes a reasonable job policy to which an employee can conform, failure to conform constitutes substantial fault. Lindsey v.

State v. Worley

677 S.E.2d 540 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jun 16, 2009

As a result, the record clearly establishes that Defendant was subject to the registration requirement set out in N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-208.7 (a). … Gen.Stat. §§ 14-208.9(a) and 14-208.11(a)(2), then such individuals would be effectively immune from the registration requirements found in current law as long as they continued to "drift."

State v. Hicks

243 N.C. App. 628 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Oct 20, 2015

NPLEx was established “to make sure that people don’t buy more [pseudoephedrine] than their allowed limits every month.” … Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 803(6) establishes an exception to the general exclusion of hearsay for business records.

State v. Head

167 N.C. App. 372 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Dec 7, 2004

The right of a defendant to be represented by counsel is well-established. Argersinger v. Hamlin, 407 U.S. 25 , 32 L. Ed. 2d 530 (1972). … But the rule as quoted above clearly applies to "a challenge" and not just his challenge.

Poarch v. N.C. Department of Crime Control & Public Safety

223 N.C. App. 125 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Oct 16, 2012

Unacceptable personal conduct does not necessarily establish just cause for all types of discipline. … In this case, we agree with the unchallenged findings of the ALJ, SPC, and superior court that petitioner’s conduct is clearly conduct unbecoming of a state employee that is detrimental to state service.

In re Suspension of License to Operate a Motor Vehicle of Rogers

94 N.C. App. 505 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jul 5, 1989

She has also stipulated that the charging officer requested her to take a breathalyzer test and that there was present at that time a qualified breathalyzer operator who held a valid permit as required by G.S. 20-139.1. … The evidence clearly establishes that petitioner received proper notification of her rights and the trial court made a finding of fact to that effect.

State v. Benitez

258 N.C. App. 491 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Mar 20, 2018

The findings establish that defendant had lived with Mr. Cruz for at least a year, and Mr. … However, the evidence does not establish that Attorney Webb read M.L.T.H. before the hearing on the motion to suppress.

State v. Hawkins

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Nov 15, 2022

In short, the requirement that an expert’s testimony pertain to “scientific knowledge” establishes a standard of evidentiary reliability. Daubert v. … This would put the Court in somewhat of a dilemma because, clearly, I have a  STATE V.

Atkins v. ZONING BD. OF ADJUSTMENT, ETC.

53 N.C. App. 723 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Sep 15, 1981

Professor Anderson puts it this way: To qualify as a nonconforming use, the use in issue must exist on the date specified in the ordinance. … We hold that an “accessory use” has not been established. Compare City of Brevard v. Ritter, 14 N.C.