Case law

State v. Hunt

249 N.C. App. 428 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Sep 6, 2016

On appeal, the defendant contended that the jury was entitled to instructions on all lesser-included offenses because the evidence did not clearly establish the amount of opium derivative present in the pills. Id. … This Court held that “[o]nce the trial court determines the expert meets the minimum qualifications to qualify as such, deviations from guidelines go to the weight of the expert’s testimony, not admissibility.”

State v. Blow

203 N.C. App. 373 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Apr 6, 2010

In the case sub judice, the record clearly shows that the probation violation report was filed on 25 February 2004. Defendant's probationary period expired on 8 November 2005. … The record further establishes that the trial court relied upon the probation violation report in finding that defendant violated the conditions of his probation. In State v.

Kinlaw v. Harris

201 N.C. App. 252 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Dec 8, 2009

Aside from the fact that two withdrawals over a four year period does not, at least in my opinion, establish the validity of Plaintiff's factual argument, Plaintiff has cited no authority demonstrating that N.C. … Stat. § 1C-1601(a)(9), given the fact that the accounts at issue are clearly individual retirement accounts as defined in N.C. Gen.

Greenhaus v. Goldstein

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · May 6, 2026

The same is true in cases dealing with governmental or sovereign immunity, such as Torres and Parker. … The trial court’s findings regarding immunity would have no effect on the facts relevant to the plaintiff’s negligent injury claims in those cases.

Baysden v. State

217 N.C. App. 20 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Nov 15, 2011

As a result of the fact that, while “the parties disagree on the legal significance of the established facts, the facts themselves are not in dispute[,]” Musi v. Town of Shallotte, 200 N.C. … Stat. § 14-415.1 that permits a certain group of persons to obtain restoration of the right to possess a firearm for which Plaintiff does not qualify 1 is not one of the five factors specified in Brill and Whitaker .

Brooks v. Stroh Brewery Co.

95 N.C. App. 226 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Sep 5, 1989

Additionally, defendant has a particularly difficult burden in establishing his right to summary judgment in a case in which plaintiff’s claim is dependent upon proof that defendant acted with a particular state of mind. … The evidence also showed that the discharged employees were highly qualified and competent machinists whose work performance was excellent. Similarly, in Marshall v. P & Z Company, Inc., 1978 O.S.H. Dec.

Blackmon v. North Carolina Department of Correction

118 N.C. App. 666 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · May 16, 1995

“Entitle” is defined as to “qualify (one) for something” or to “furnish with proper grounds for seeking or claiming something.” … See G.S. § 97-2(11) (1994). “ ‘Compensation,’ in the connection in which it is used in the Act, means a money relief afforded according to the scale established and for the persons designated in the Act,” Branham v.

Estate of Barksdale v. Duke Univ. Med.

175 N.C. App. 102 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Dec 20, 2005

Rule 702(e) of the Rules of Evidence and who is willing to testify that the medical care did not comply with the applicable standard of care, and the motion is filed with the complaint; or (3) The pleading alleges facts establishing … Plaintiff recommenced the civil action as to all defendants on 19 November 2003 - clearly beyond the statute of limitations and 120-day extensions in each case.

State v. Worley

198 N.C. App. 329 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jul 21, 2009

Thus, the undisputed record evidence clearly establishes that Defendant was subject to the registration regimen set out in N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-208.7 (a). … 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.”

Snelling & Snelling, Inc. v. Watson

41 N.C. App. 193 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · May 15, 1979

The statutory provisions clearly provide that the State may not require a foreign corporation to obtain a Certificate of Authority by reason of its tranacting interstate business. … Plaintiff brought suit on the promissory note in Alabama, and defendant moved to dismiss the complaint for failure of Great Lakes to qualify to do business in violation of the Constitution of Alabama, Art.

City of Charlotte v. Ertel

170 N.C. App. 346 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · May 17, 2005

Appellants contend that Goines was “the best qualified of any witness offered” because of his “extensive business dealings” in real estate matters. … “A trial judge’s discretionary order made pursuant to Rule 59 for or against a new trial may be reversed only when an abuse of discretion is clearly shown.” Hanna v. Brady, 73 N.C.

Blankenship Construction Co. v. North Carolina State Highway Commission

28 N.C. App. 593 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Mar 3, 1976

It is appropriate to preface this opinion by acknowledging the well-established rule that the Commission is not subject to suit except in the manner provided by statute. Teer Co. v. … The notice and record-keeping requirements are clearly set forth in the contract. The Contractor’s failure to comply with these procedures is inexcusable.

Doe v. Diocese Raleigh

242 N.C. App. 42 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jul 7, 2015

First Amendment's Prohibition Against Excessive Entanglement in Ecclesiastical Matters The Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment prohibit any "law respecting an establishment of religion … church for its negligent supervision of priest accused of sexually abusing minors was not jurisdictionally barred and "reject[ing] the notion that the First Amendment provides, or was intended to provide, blanket civil immunity

In re: Chastain

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Feb 1, 2022

Article IV establishes our judicial branch, including the office of Clerk in each county. … has established a procedure whereby our Supreme Court may also “suspend” and “public[ly] reprimand” a judge.

Thomas v. Overland Express, Inc.

101 N.C. App. 90 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Dec 18, 1990

. *92 WITNESSETH WHEREAS, Employer is in the business of hiring qualified employees to perform various tasks in the trucking business; and WHEREAS, Employee desires to work in the trucking business for Employer; and WHEREAS … maintains more than the jurisdictionally requisite number of employees and which maintains substantial business facilities in North Carolina should not be allowed to avoid the burdens imposed by our laws when the employer clearly

State v. Desperados, Inc.

180 N.C. App. 378 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Dec 5, 2006

Or the city may reasonably prohibit kinds or degrees of sound amplification that are clearly incompatible with the normal activity of certain locations at certain times. … As such, the paragraph of the ordinance establishing prohibitions and exemptions is an impermissible prior restraint, which violates the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.

State v. Rojas

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Mar 5, 2025

He is asking the court to conclude that the evidence so clearly establishes the fact in issue that no reasonable inferences to the contrary can be drawn, and that the credibility … However, defendant’s testimony does not qualify as the kind of “manifestly credible” evidence relevant to our analysis.

North Carolina Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance v. Allen

146 N.C. App. 539 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Oct 16, 2001

The party seeking summary judgment must establish the absence of any triable issue; this burden may be met by (1) proving the nonexistence of an essential element of the opposing party’s claim, (2) establishing through discovery … According to Yow’s deposition, he could clearly see Allen approximately three feet away through the door when Allen shot him.

United States Leasing Corp. v. Everett, Creech, Hancock & Herzig

88 N.C. App. 418 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jan 19, 1988

Leasing thus failed to establish its “capacity” and “standing” to sue; and that the action should have been dismissed at the close of the evidence. … Hunter was qualified to lay a foundation for plaintiffs business records and that, in fact, a proper foundation was laid. Defendants’ “best evidence” argument is likewise without merit.

McCrann v. Pinehurst, LLC

225 N.C. App. 368 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Feb 5, 2013

. *370 Background The record establishes that the town of Pinehurst, North Carolina was established on land once owned by Mr. Leonard Tufts. Mr. … As plaintiffs have not established that the original covenanting parties intended for the covenant to benefit them, they have not established their right to enforce the restrictive covenants under the theory of equitable