Case law

Square D Co. v. C. J. Kern Contractors, Inc.

70 N.C. App. 30 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Aug 21, 1984

G.S. 1-50(5) by its terms thus clearly bars plaintiff's claim against Associates. B. We note that G.S. 1-50(5) was rewritten substantially in 1981. Act of June 22, 1981, ch. 644, § 1, 1981 N.C.Sess. … In my opinion, the General Assembly had no rational basis for immunizing architects and builders against all legal liability just six years after improvements are made to real estate.

Morningstar Marinas/Eaton Ferry, LLC v. Warren County

233 N.C. App. 23 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Mar 18, 2014

“A court cannot refuse a petition for writ of mandamus when it is sought to enforce a clearly-established legal right.” Id. at 453 , 665 S.E.2d at 59 . … This Court concluded that the petitioner’s application to the BOA appealing the zoning officer’s decision had not alleged special damages as required in order for the petitioner to qualify as a “person aggrieved.”

In Re the Estate of Washburn

158 N.C. App. 457 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jun 17, 2003

Champion, niece and nephew, respectively, qualified as Co-Executors of the Estate of. . . Washburn. 4. On September 16, 1999,... … The power of attorney executed by Washburn specifically grants Scruggs the authority to act on Washburn’s behalf with respect to her banking transactions and tax matters, and the transfers and deposits clearly constituted

Eli Global, LLC v. Heavner

250 N.C. App. 534 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Dec 6, 2016

Thus, the company will be in protective custody of the courts so that it can continue business operations and pursue a sale of the 40-year-old business to a qualified buyer, thereby protecting its employees, customers, and … Although some of defendant’s remarks may appear to express an opinion, a person “cannot preface an otherwise defamatory statement with ‘in my opinion’ and claim immunity from liability[.]” Id.

Kabasan v. Kabasan

257 N.C. App. 436 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jan 16, 2018

Xanthos “was qualified as an expert in forensic accounting and valuation,” the transcript establishes that, following voir dire, the trial court ruled that “Ms. … Xanthos was well- qualified as an expert in accounting, forensic accounting, or valuation.

In Re DJD

615 S.E.2d 26 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jul 5, 2005

cocaine at birth, the history of domestic violence between the parents, the mother's admission of drug addiction, the refusal to enroll one child in school, excessive absenteeism by another child, and the failure to maintain immunizations … Respondent also contends the petitioner failed to prove that he was unable to establish a safe home. We disagree.

Estate of Hurst ex rel. Cherry v. Jones

230 N.C. App. 162 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Nov 5, 2013

This position is clearly inconsistent with their prior assertion. … clearly appears to be for value.

Silver v. The Halifax Cty. Bd. of Commissioners

255 N.C. App. 559 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Sep 19, 2017

OF COMM’RS Opinion of the Court and the inability to retain qualified teachers. … Leandro I and II established that the State is constitutionally responsible for public education.

Wakemed v. North Carolina Department of Health & Human Services

225 N.C. App. 253 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jan 15, 2013

finding further demonstrates that the Department properly rejected WakeMed’s proposed interpretation of Criterion 13(a), because WakeMed’s interpretation, which would lead to half of North Carolina’s hospitals being unable to qualify … for a CON, clearly produces absurd results which would contravene the General Assembly’s manifest purpose in enacting the CON law.

Nicholson v. Thom

236 N.C. App. 308 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Sep 16, 2014

Section 160.102 clearly states that Subchapter C of HIPAA applies to health plans, health care clearinghouses, and certain health care providers. … Rule 702 or must be a person the plaintiff will seek to have qualified as an expert . . . .

Wachovia Bank & Trust Co. v. Robertson

16 N.C. App. 484 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Nov 22, 1972

Robertson Fund” and qualified as trustee on 31 July 1962. Since that date, petitioner has continued to act as trustee of this fund. … Robinson, Jr., was to be given to the Fifth Third Union Trust Company, Cincinnati, Ohio, as trustee under a trust she had already established. By section 1 of Item IV, testatrix established The Hope T.

Advisor Law, LLC v. Holland

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Feb 4, 2026

The interpretation urged by our dissenting colleague fails to give effect to the qualifying language of the arbitration clause, impermissibly broadening its scope. … Contract Interpretation The canons of contract interpretation are well established and clear.

State v. Green

266 N.C. App. 382 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jul 16, 2019

Thereafter, Defendant was convicted of a new crime and during sentencing stipulated that his prior Possession-of-Drug-Paraphernalia conviction qualified for the higher classification for sentencing. … Here, Defendant stipulated that this conviction warranted a Class I felony classification for sentencing purposes; however, the judgment, which was before the trial court, clearly shows that Defendant’s conviction was a

In re Taylor

242 N.C. App. 30 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jul 7, 2015

The decedent's last will and testament was filed for probate with the Cumberland County Clerk of Court, and Taylor qualified as executor of the Estate on 14 May 2012. … It is well established that a clerk of court has original jurisdiction in probate matters. See N.C.

Cacha v. Montaco, Inc.

147 N.C. App. 21 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Nov 6, 2001

. § l-50(a)(5) itself specifies that the statute of repose begins to run from “substantial completion,” and that a “ ‘repair’ does not qualify as a ‘last act’ ”). … Here, had plaintiffs remained parties to the class action, their claims against Dryvit clearly would not have been barred by the statute of repose because the class action was filed against defendant Dryvit inside of the

Gray v. United Parcel Service, Inc.

226 N.C. App. 15 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Mar 19, 2013

A reading of the Commission’s conclusion of law number five clearly states that “medical certainty” is not required. … However, when such *22 expert opinion testimony is based merely upon speculation and conjecture, ... it is not sufficiently reliable to qualify as competent evidence on issues of medical causation.

Neusoft Med. Sys., United States, Inc. v. Neuisys, LLC

242 N.C. App. 102 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jul 7, 2015

NC Distributor's complaint also alleges that Neusoft China used the confidential information acquired in connection with the potential acquisition "to establish [Neusoft USA]" and "to formulate a plan of forcing [NC Distributor … For example, if a defendant claims sovereign immunity as a defense to an action, a denial of its motion to dismiss based on this defense would generally be immediately appealable. See, e.g., Dep't of Transp. v.

Harbour Point Homeowners'assoc., Inc. Ex Rel. Bd. of Dir. v. Djf Enterprises

206 N.C. App. 152 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Aug 3, 2010

Plaintiff also argues that “[allowing retention of [the memo] would have prevented the need to conduct voluminous depositions, likely in several other states, seeking to establish the very information conclusively established … Does not identify the field or fields, if any, in which the professor might be qualified as an expert; 3. States the professor’s opinions in conclusory form, without providing any supporting facts; 4.

State v. Ford

245 N.C. App. 510 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Feb 16, 2016

To establish ownership, the plaintiff presented two documents, printouts from internet web pages. … To the extent defendant’s objection was based on insufficient authentication, it was not clearly a part of his suppression motion.

State v. Campbell

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Sep 20, 2022

The State argues, however, that Defendant’s “same-day conviction” for the sale of cocaine qualifies Defendant as having “previously been convicted” of a felony offense under state law and, therefore, renders … This statute reflects that the General Assembly knows how to clearly indicate that same-day convictions should be included within sentencing, but chose not to here.