Case law

In re A.N.C.

225 N.C. App. 315 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Feb 5, 2013

Ed. 2d. 501, 510 (1979), in which the United States Supreme Court held that immunized grand jury testimony obtained as the result of the defendant’s compliance with a grand jury subpoena was “the essence of coerced testimony … In addition, the record clearly establishes that the only persons in the vicinity of the accident scene at the time of Officer Singletary’s arrival were Andrew and his friends and that the wrecked vehicle was registered to

Blanton v. Fitch

150 N.C. App. 200 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · May 7, 2002

It established child support as well as custody of their two minor children. From approximately August of 1997 to June of 1998, both children received counseling from Crystal Champion. … However, Champion does not qualify for this exception because she is a resident of Shelby, North Carolina. We can find no basis upon which Champion’s services were statutorily permitted in North Carolina.

In re: A.K.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Aug 6, 2024

However, the trial court’s ruling regarding counsel is clearly addressed in the Adjudication Order which was properly noticed for appeal, and we have the transcript for this hearing. … It is well-established that a parent in an adjudication or termination of parental rights case is entitled to counsel of their choice. See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B- 602(a)(3).

State v. Gattis

166 N.C. App. 1 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Sep 7, 2004

The commentary to Rule 803(4) specifically provides that “[statements as to fault would not ordinarily qualify under this latter language.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 803(4), Commentary. … We hold that the trial court’s decision that defendant failed to present a prima facie case under Raison was not clearly erroneous. VI. Short-form Indictment.

Jacobs v. City of Asheville

137 N.C. App. 441 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Apr 18, 2000

As originally enacted in 1953, the Asheville Civil Service Law established a Department of Civil Service as a part of Asheville city government. … The Civil Service Board was to make rules for “the appointment, promotion, transfer, layoff, reinstatement, suspension and removal of employees in the qualified service.”

Beaver v. City of Salisbury

130 N.C. App. 417 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Aug 4, 1998

In other words, if a medical condition is clearly found not to be an occupational disease based on the evidence provided, the Court can overturn the decision of the Commission. … Bendix was not qualified to render an opinion that decedent’s lymphoma was an occupational disease; that Dr.

State v. Forrest

164 N.C. App. 272 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · May 18, 2004

call qualifies as an excited utterance precisely because there has been no opportunity for the caller to reflect and falsify her (or his) account of events. … “It is well established that in order for an assertion to come within the parameters of this particular exception, ‘there must be (1) a sufficiently startling experience suspending reflective thought and (2) a spontaneous

Foster v. NASH-ROCKY MOUNT CTY. BD. OF EDUC.

665 S.E.2d 745 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jul 15, 2008

At that time, plaintiff was seven years old and had, among other conditions, the following disabilities, which qualified him as a special needs child: cerebral palsy, hydrocephalus, and seizure disorder. … In order to recover for negligence, plaintiff must establish (1) a legal duty, (2) a breach thereof, and (3) proximate cause of the injury.

State Ex Rel. Pilard v. Berninger

154 N.C. App. 45 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Nov 19, 2002

On 27 February 1992, Berninger was qualified as administratrix of decedent’s estate, and served as such until the filing of a final account on 12 November 1993. … The evidence clearly established that the three certificates of deposit were purchased with funds owned equally by Berninger and decedent. Thus, decedent maintained a one-half interest in the certificates.

State v. Towe

210 N.C. App. 430 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Mar 15, 2011

reputation of judicial proceedings” or where it can be fairly said “the instructional mistake had a probable impact on the jury’s finding that the defendant was guilty.” *435 Under the North Carolina Rules of Evidence, a qualified … We note, however, that the admission of this evidence was clearly problematic in at least one respect: the trial court failed to determine whether the purposes for which the evidence was offered were at issue. *437 While

Moore v. Concrete Supply Co.

149 N.C. App. 381 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Mar 19, 2002

In April 1996, McGregor met with Jim Shaar, Concrete Supply Company’s personnel manager, to discuss positions for which Moore might qualify. … Clearly, if the proffered employment is not suitable for the injured employee, the employee’s refusal thereof cannot be used to bar compensation to which the employee is otherwise entitled. See McLean v.

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.

Templeton v. Town of Boone

208 N.C. App. 50 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Nov 16, 2010

When analyzing whether an ordinance had been selectively enforced against the plaintiff as compared with others in the municipality, a threshold question of enforcement clearly is necessary. … If we take the allegations as true, then both allegations are sufficient to establish standing.

Amward Homes, Inc. v. Town of Cary

206 N.C. App. 38 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Aug 3, 2010

Establishment of Procedure to Issue Certificates of Adequate Education Facilities fCAEF’s). The School System will establish *42 an administrative review process to receive and take action upon applications for . . . … Since the repeal of the APSFO here does not redress either of these claims, clearly the issues raised in this case are still viable and not moot. B.

Ingram v. Henderson Cnty. Hosp. Corp.

815 S.E.2d 719 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · May 1, 2018

23rd, 2010, cannot be considered for the purpose of establishing standard of care in this case. … “[I]t is also now well established that even when a complaint facially complies with Rule 9(j) by including a statement pursuant to Rule 9(j), if discovery subsequently establishes that the statement is not supported by

Campos-Brizuela v. Rocha Masonry, L.L.C.

216 N.C. App. 208 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Oct 4, 2011

As we have already concluded, the credible evidence in the record clearly establishes that Mr. … A claimant’s treating physician is qualified to render an opinion as to the physical factors that limit the claimant’s ability to work.

In Re Knm

681 S.E.2d 864 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Aug 4, 2009

At the first hearing, the court shall dismiss the provisional counsel if the respondent parent: (1) Does not appear at the hearing; (2) Does not qualify for court-appointed counsel; (3) Has retained counsel; or (4) Waives … The trial court further found that: (1) the present plan for the juveniles was adoption; (2) that they had resided with their current placements since 2007; (3) that their current placements "clearly treasure" the juveniles

Cullen v. Logan Developers

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · May 16, 2023

’s negligence so clearly that no other reasonable conclusion may be reached.” … App. 462, 466 (1992) (noting more than a violation of the building code is needed to establish gross negligence 4 Since the forecasted evidence does not establish Plaintiff was contributorily negligent as a matter

Robinson v. Seaboard System RR, Inc.

87 N.C. App. 512 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Nov 17, 1987

He specifically qualified his opinion, stating, “if the Board of Transportation had ruled that signalization was required and it was my job to select [the] type of signalization required, I would select gates.” … It is well established that a party’s contributory negligence will not preclude recovery for injuries proximately caused by another’s willful and wanton negligence. Fry v.

State v. Dent

174 N.C. App. 459 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Nov 15, 2005

To establish ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must satisfy the following two-part test: First, the defendant must show that counsel’s performance was deficient. … Stat. § 90-95 (e)(9) clearly extends to “any person” possessing a controlled substance at a local confinement facility, and the scope of its coverage expressly includes the “premises” of such facilities.