Case law

Lindsey v. Boddie-Noell Enterprises, Inc.

147 N.C. App. 166 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Nov 20, 2001

The evidence at trial tended to establish the following facts. … It is well-established that polygraph evidence is not admissible *176 in North Carolina trial courts. See State v.

State v. Jones

147 N.C. App. 527 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Dec 18, 2001

Thus, defendant argues, a guardian must be interpreted to mean someone court-appointed, with legally established rights and responsibilities regarding the juvenile. … Moreover, defendant has not clearly identified the evidence which he finds improper and has not assigned plain error to this assignment of error on appeal.

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.

Livingston v. Adams Kleemeier Hagan Hannah & Fouts, P.L.L.C.

163 N.C. App. 397 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Apr 6, 2004

Despite the fact that the Mayo properties were not mentioned in the 30 January 1992 letter, the testimony of Mattocks and Kemp clearly established that Southern National was aware of the Mayo properties and simply made a … “In a negligence action, summary judgment for defendant is proper where the evidence fails to establish negligence on the *407 part of defendant, establishes contributory negligence on the part of plaintiff, or establishes

State v. Washington

131 N.C. App. 156 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Oct 20, 1998

Although A.W.’s statements to Nurse Madeiros were hearsay, they were clearly made for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment and the trial court correctly admitted them under Rule of Evidence 803(4). D. … Expert testimony is admissible if it “can assist the jury in drawing certain inferences from facts and the expert is better qualified than the jury to draw such inferences.” State v.

State Highway Commission v. Matthis

2 N.C. App. 233 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Sep 18, 1968

The assignments of error cited and the exceptions relied on relate to evidence tending to establish the cost of “completing the development” of defendants’ property and tending to establish that the defendants had given an … has been improperly used in connection with an antecedent agreement to be bound by it, and that an invalid quotient verdict has therefore been rendered, the clearly prevailing view appears to be to the contrary and to reject

In Re the Denial of NC IDEA's Refund of Sales & Use of Tax

196 N.C. App. 426 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Apr 21, 2009

As a result, the Assistant Secretary concluded that NC IDEA did not qualify for a refund of sales and use tax as a charitable organization pursuant to N.C. Gen. … Stat. § 105-164.14 (b)(3) because it did not qualify as a “charitable . . . organization not operated for profit.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 150B-51 (b)(4).

Livingston v. ADAMS & FOUTS, PLLC

163 N.C. App. 397 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Apr 6, 2004

Despite the fact that the Mayo properties were not mentioned in the 30 January 1992 letter, the testimony of Mattocks and Kemp clearly established that Southern National was aware of the Mayo properties and simply made a … "In a negligence action, summary judgment for defendant is proper where the evidence fails to establish negligence on the part of defendant, establishes contributory negligence on the part of plaintiff, or establishes that

McBride v. Peony Corp.

84 N.C. App. 221 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Feb 3, 1987

Such a determination depends largely upon the unique facts of each particular case, and, in close cases, the benefit of the doubt concerning this issue should be given to the employee *227 in accordance with the established … That reason is clearly of substantial benefit to the employer. This trip also qualifies as compensable under the dual purpose rule, as stated in Humphrey v.

Davis v. Davis

58 N.C. App. 25 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jul 6, 1982

G.S. 59-37 provides, in part, as follows: In determining whether a partnership exists, these rules shall apply: (3) The sharing of gross returns does not of itself establish a partnership, whether or not the persons sharing … Plaintiff’s evidence clearly shows that the parties discussed his coming into the business which led to their subsequent *31 engagement together in business transactions.

Sterling Title Company v. Martin

266 N.C. App. 593 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Aug 6, 2019

Plaintiff maintains that “[b]ecause the Complaint clearly identifies a specific document which was misappropriated,” i.e., the contact list, Plaintiff “has sufficiently pled misappropriation of trade secrets.” … Although “information regarding customer lists . . . can qualify as a trade secret under [the Act],” Krawiec v.

Development Assoc. v. WAKE CTY. BD. OF ADJ.

48 N.C. App. 541 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Sep 2, 1980

Chapter 67 of the General Statutes, entitled "Dogs", deals with dogs so as clearly to distinguish them from livestock. G.S. 67-1 provides: Liability for injury to livestock or fowls. … G.S. 105-164.4(1)g establishes a reduced sales tax rate in the sale of certain machinery and accessories to "dairy operators, poultry farmers, egg producers, and livestock farmers for use by them in the production of dairy

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

State v. Bennett

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Apr 5, 2022

Black jurors were struck disproportionately to qualified non-Black jurors. … Second, if a prima facie case is established, the burden shifts to the State to present a race-neutral explanation for the challenge.

Regions Bank v. Baxley Commercial Properties, LLC

206 N.C. App. 293 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Aug 3, 2010

Qualified Personnel, Inc., 294 N.C. 200, 207 , 240 S.E.2d 338, 343 (1978) (citation and quotation marks omitted). … Defendant BDI’s argument in its written motion is clearly based upon N.C. Gen.

Madison v. International Paper Co.

165 N.C. App. 144 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jul 6, 2004

Almeida and from his autopsy report, establishes that a “contributing factor” to the heart attack was [Madison’s] work “in a hot environment.” … “However, when such 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.” Young v. Hickory Bus.

Potter v. Potter

131 N.C. App. 1 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Oct 6, 1998

The PKPA “establishes national policy in the area of custody jurisdiction,” Gasser v. Sperry, 93 N.C. … By the same token, this Court has also deferred to foreign jurisdictions which qualified as the child’s home state. See, e.g., In re Bhatti, 98 N.C.

Gerity v. N.C. Dep't of Health & Human Servs.

247 N.C. App. 652 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jun 7, 2016

NCDHHS Opinion of the Court “whole bullet,” particularly in light of the autopsy report which clearly describes a “gaping” exit wound. 9. … Radisch, we conclude petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that he reported or was about to report protected activity.

State v. Alshaif

219 N.C. App. 162 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Feb 21, 2012

McKinney also stated that Defendant was “not only clearly deportable, but [was] also ineligible for any relief from removal[,] . . . [and was] ineligible to re-seek permanent residency.” Mr. … In Whorton , the Supreme Court noted that “[i]n order to qualify as watershed, a new rule must meet two requirements.

In re: X.I.F., J.R.F.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Feb 19, 2025

That clearly incarceration has been an impediment to the father trying to reach out to the children and to establish and maintain a relationship, and I am taking that into consideration … that that clearly does impose issues with father’s attempt to maintain the relationship.