Case law

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.

Baker v. Speedway Motorsports, Inc.

173 N.C. App. 254 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Sep 20, 2005

of it as is true and qualify or deny the remainder. … Specifically, at the hearing, Judge Spainhour clearly and unambiguously instructed Mrs. Hepler’s attorney to produce the documents subsequently referenced in Conclusion of Law No. 4 “[w]ithin 20 days.”

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.

Grant v. Burlington Industries, Inc.

77 N.C. App. 241 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Oct 15, 1985

As such, this Court held he was qualified to give his opinion both as to the causation and the extent of the claimant’s lung disease. … Such a claimant, who is able to establish impairment of his or her wage- *252 earning capacity, will undoubtedly seek the greater mandatory benefits recoverable for total or partial disability under G.S.

Great Southern Media, Inc. v. McDowell County

50 N.C. App. 705 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Mar 3, 1981

The statute clearly states that the newspaper publishing the notice must have a general circulation to its actual paid subscribers. … We have already established that the court made sufficient findings relative to The Old Fort Dispatch having actual paid subscribers in McDowell County.

Thompson v. First Citizens Bank & Trust Co.

151 N.C. App. 704 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Aug 6, 2002

In the instant case, the CD confirmation clearly states, in upper case type, “NON-TRANSFERABLE.” … We conclude that this qualifies as “a conspicuous statement... that the promise or order is not negotiable,” and, thus, that the CD does not fall within the purview of the negotiable instrument provisions of the UCC.

State v. Washington

141 N.C. App. 354 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Dec 29, 2000

Defendant made no further effort to qualify the witness. Accordingly, the testimony was not admissible under Rule 702. … establish ill-will against the victim and lack of accident.

Robinson v. King

68 N.C. App. 86 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · May 1, 1984

The Court decided that the habendum so clearly showed the grantor’s intent to convey a life estate that the word “heirs” in the granting clause must have been included in deference to the established formula for conveyances … The attempted will clearly stated that Maggie Robinson was to use the property during her lifetime.

Guilford Cty. v. Mabe

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Oct 5, 2021

Interlocutory Order ¶7 CSEA contends the trial court erred in ordering DNA testing to establish paternity because paternity was already established in 2015. … A substantial right is one which will clearly be lost or irremediably adversely affected if the order is not reviewable before final judgment.

State v. Flaherty

55 N.C. App. 14 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Dec 1, 1981

Connor, 142 N.C. 700, 701-02 , 55 S.E. 787, 787 (1906): It is well established that when a statute creates a substantive criminal offense, the description of the same being complete and definite, and by subsequent clause, … Stated otherwise, “when defendant relies upon some independent, distinct, substantive matter of exemption, immunity or defense, beyond the essentials of the legal definition of the offense itself, the onus of proof as to

INTERLOCAL RISK FINANCING FUND OF NORTH CAROLINA v. Ryals

652 S.E.2d 72 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Nov 6, 2007

In deciding whether Plaintiff's policy affords coverage for Penny, we are guided by well-established rules of insurance policy construction. … "Some acts, however, are so clearly outside the scope of employment that summary judgment is proper." Id. at 594 , 398 S.E.2d at 464 .

State v. Hunt

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Oct 15, 2024

Considering the lack of prejudice, I would also hold that defendant has not established that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. … a whole, they present the law fairly and clearly to the jury.

State v. Washington

540 S.E.2d 388 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Dec 29, 2000

Defendant made no further effort to qualify the witness. Accordingly, the testimony was not admissible under Rule 702. … establish ill-will against the victim and lack of accident.

Clark v. Perry

114 N.C. App. 297 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Apr 19, 1994

Jacinto admitted Clark to Forsyth Hospital as the result of complications associated with acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS). … Consequently, our courts have consistently held that in the usual medical malpractice or medical negligence case, testimony of a qualified expert is required to establish the standard of care. Tice v. Hall, 63 N.C.

State v. Hammonds

243 N.C. App. 602 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Oct 20, 2015

Such a result would be directly at odds with established constitutional doctrine that while persons in government-imposed confinement retain various rights secured by the Bill of Rights, they retain them in forms qualified … Such a result is "directly at odds with established constitutional doctrine that while persons in government-imposed confinement retain various rights secured by the Bill of Rights, they retain them in forms qualified by

State v. Wiggins

159 N.C. App. 252 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Aug 5, 2003

To establish error on appeal, defendant “must show that the evidence so clearly establishes the fact in issue that no reasonable inferences to the contrary can be drawn and that the credibility of the evidence [to support … One witness’ conclusory testimony as to the existence of a support structure is unsubstantial and insufficient to clearly establish the factor and does not compel a finding of the mitigating factor. State v.

Stephens v. Dortch

148 N.C. App. 509 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Feb 5, 2002

‘qualify the grantee’s rights by the use of such terms as “personally” or “in person.” ’ ” Id. at 123-24 , 505 S.E.2d at 325 (citation omitted). … A 1914 map of neighboring Midwood Subdivision clearly locates Belvedere Avenue.

Susi v. Aubin

173 N.C. App. 608 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Oct 4, 2005

In making this determination, the district court judge "may appoint a qualified person to examine the property and report its value to the judge." Id. … Significantly, once a creditor establishes, under N.C.

Moss v. N.C. Dep't of State Treasurer

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Apr 5, 2022

¶ 18 Here, Plaintiffs were both employed as teachers for the State for at least one year, and thus, Plaintiffs qualified for long-term disability benefits. … ¶ 23 Here, Plaintiffs specifically contend that Defendant waived the defense of sovereign immunity when it entered into a contract with Plaintiffs. See Guthrie v.

In re J. A.

103 N.C. App. 720 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Aug 20, 1991

As to the hearsay statements of Investigator Barringer, respondent contends that this testimony did not qualify as a state *728 ment made for the purpose of medical diagnosis within the meaning of N.C. R. … The facts clearly do not support his argument. CL was available and, indeed, testified at trial and was subject to cross-examination.