Case law

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.

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.

Kubit v. MAG Mutual Insurance

210 N.C. App. 273 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Mar 15, 2011

In support of their argument that they qualify as insureds under the policies, the individual plaintiffs point to Dr. … The complaint states that “[a]s with the first peer review action on his privileges, the Hospital’s investigation of this complaint was clearly inadequate.”

Terry v. Terry

46 N.C. App. 583 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · May 6, 1980

However, the vitals of the creature are well established: “There must be a misrepresentation of material fact, made with knowledge of its falsity and with intent to deceive, which the other party reasonably relies on to his … Also, defendant did not qualify as the executor of the estate until some time thereafter.

Matter of JA

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

Specifically, he contends that the state failed to establish that there had been a sexual act committed. … The facts clearly do not support his argument. CL was available and, indeed, testified at trial and was subject to cross-examination.

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.

Spears v. Betsy Johnson Memorial Hospital

210 N.C. App. 716 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Apr 5, 2011

Mavretic and Christopher Scott participated in the 14 February 2005 decision, plaintiff contends that they were “not qualified to sit on the Full Commission in this case.” … Stat. § 97-47 and how such a change in condition may be established.

Settlers Edge Holding Co., LLC v. RES-NC Settlers Edge

250 N.C. App. 645 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Dec 6, 2016

Clearly, an affirmative defense asserted by a defendant in an action brought by the [FDIC] is none of these.” (Citations and quotation marks omitted) (Emphasis added)). … As in Lawson, the FDIC’s actions here, though informal, clearly constituted a repudiation. Id.

Appalachian Materials, LLC v. Watauga Cnty.

262 N.C. App. 156 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Nov 6, 2018

Clearly, the phrase “those facilities” refers to the entities listed with specificity in the first sentence. … Thus, the Gragg Center likewise fails to qualify as an “educational facility” under the second sentence of the definition.

In re: J.R., A.R.

250 N.C. App. 195 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Nov 1, 2016

And the Court -- if the Court finds the person -- 7B- 602(a)(1) states a parent qualifying for appointed counsel may be permitted to proceed without the assistance of counsel only after the Court examines … That subsection clearly states that the trial court may allow the parent to proceed pro se, and it is well established that the use of the word “may” in a statute implies the use of discretion.

Parkway Urology, P.A. v. North Carolina Department of Health & Human Services

205 N.C. App. 529 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jul 20, 2010

The FAD correctly concluded that Rex qualified as an affected person under this definition and was thus entitled to file a petition for a contested case hearing. … As previously noted, Rex qualified as an affected person because it provided similar services to individuals residing within the service area of CCNC’s proposed LINAC.

Holland v. Harrison

254 N.C. App. 636 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Aug 1, 2017

Section 1983 provides a private right of action against anyone who, acting under color of state law, causes the “deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution . . . .” 42 U.S.C. § 1983 … Defendants contend that even taking Holland’s factual allegations as true, she has failed to establish that her speech related to a matter of public concern.

In re: A.D.H.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Sep 3, 2024

But, here, Petitioner’s issues were automatically preserved for review because Petitioner is very clearly challenging whether the trial court’s decision to grant Father’s motions is supported by its findings of fact and … Having established the preclusive effect of the CCO, we now turn to the preclusive effect of the IPO.

Charlotte-Mecklenburg Hospital Authority v. North Carolina Department of Health & Human Services

201 N.C. App. 70 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Nov 17, 2009

If Congress had intended this result, we must presume it would have used stronger and more explicit language than “seek reimbursement” to indicate clearly that the State should seek reimbursement directly from the Secretary … any State' or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities

Carillon Assisted Living, LLC v. North Carolina Department of Health & Human Services

175 N.C. App. 265 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jan 3, 2006

This legislative enactment clearly precludes the Department of Health and Human Services from approving additional beds after the effective date of the legislation — 1 July 1997 — except pursuant to the specific circumstances … These limitations provided that beds that qualified under one of the exemptions for which a license had not yet been obtained could no longer be developed unless evidence of qualifying financial commitments and developmental

Lambert v. Town of Sylva

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jul 7, 2020

Plaintiff’s Section 1983 Claim “To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must show that an individual, acting under color of law, has subjected [him] to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities … It is true the trial court likely could have more clearly delineated Plaintiff’s Section 1983 Claim for violation of his federal constitutional rights from Plaintiff’s additional claims sounding in North Carolina law and

Erickson v. N.C. Dep't of Pub. Safety

264 N.C. App. 700 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Apr 2, 2019

. § 126-34.02; the doctrine of sovereign immunity; and Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), 12(b)(2), and 12(b)(3). … “It is well established that the appellant bears the burden of showing to this Court that the appeal is proper.” Johnson v. Lucas, 168 N.C.

Osmond v. Carolina Concrete Specialties

151 N.C. App. 541 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Aug 12, 2002

However, the evidence clearly shows that Donald Osmond had failed a road test given by Mr. Braun and was unable to drive the dump truck. … Plaintiff had experience in driving dump trucks while his brother was not qualified to drive a dump truck nor did he have a valid driver’s license.

In Re YYET

695 S.E.2d 517 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jul 6, 2010

Respondent-mother also believed the injury could have been caused by an immunization the child received. The trial court made the following additional findings of fact in its adjudication order: 6. Dr. … Thus, he has clearly failed to acknowledge why his child entered DSS custody, and he has also failed to exhibit changed behaviors.

Lumley v. Dancy Const. Co., Inc.

79 N.C. App. 114 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Feb 4, 1986

Courts in other jurisdictions have likewise rejected the proposition that a particular illness cannot qualify as an “occupational disease” merely because it is not unique to the injured employee’s profession. Young v. … In response to the defendants’ argument in Booker that the disease in question was an or *121 dinary disease of life which the general public could contract, Chief Justice Sharp further stated: Clearly, serum hepatitis is