Case law

Leeks v. CUMBERLAND COUNTY MENTAL HEALTH DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITY AND SUBSTANCE ABUSE FACILITY

154 N.C. App. 71 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Nov 19, 2002

Petitioner’s testimony is corroborated by other witnesses, and clearly shows that petitioner did more than just “call[] the group home.” … Petitioner failed to prove that the depression and sleep disorder qualify as “physical or mental impairments.”

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.

Beck v. Beck

175 N.C. App. 519 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jan 17, 2006

Beck’s] 1998 will, the parties have agreed to stipulate that, if Evelyn Barton Beck qualifies as the executor of Avery Edward Beck under the 1998 will, evidence of this fact will not be admissible in the present action for … The “essential purpose” of the quasi-estoppel theory is to prevent a party from benefitting by taking two clearly inconsistent positions. B & F Slosman v. Sonopress, Inc., 148 N.C.

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.

State v. MacKey

209 N.C. App. 116 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jan 4, 2011

The notice shall list all the aggravating factors the State seeks to establish. … In those cases, standing was not addressed, as the defendants in each case clearly had standing. Here, we must first consider standing.

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. Ray

197 N.C. App. 662 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jul 7, 2009

Loughlin was qualified as an expert in pediatrics and child abuse pediatrics. He testified that his examination of L.G. had included an interview and a physical examination. L.G. told Dr. … Hence, if the court does not clearly perceive the connection between the extraneous criminal transaction and the crime charged, that is, its logical relevancy, the accused should be given the benefit of the doubt, and the

Opsahl v. Pinehurst Inc.

81 N.C. App. 56 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jun 3, 1986

Our Supreme Court later qualified Hinson in Financial Services v. Capitol Funds, 288 N.C. 122 , 217 S.E. 2d 551 (1975). … “A practice is unfair when it offends established public policy as well as when the practice is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous, or substantially injurious to consumers.” Id.

Mohebali v. Hayes

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Aug 20, 2025

HAYES Opinion of the Court At the end of July, after Plaintiff reached 43 weeks, she was experiencing fever and intense pain, was not thinking clearly, and was having urinary … The “remedy” constitutionally guaranteed “for an injury done” is qualified by the words “by due course of law.”

Quesinberry v. Quesinberry

210 N.C. App. 578 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Apr 5, 2011

“[I]t is imperative that the trial court ‘make specific findings regarding the value of a [business] and the existence and value of its goodwill, and should clearly indicate the evidence on which its valuations are based, … ” who is “substantially in need” “requires only that the spouse seeking alimony establish that he or she would be unable to maintain his or her accustomed standard of living (established prior to separation) without financial

State v. Parker

185 N.C. App. 437 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Aug 21, 2007

Ira Adler, a board-certified radiologist qualified in pediatric radiology, testified that he examined Nayshawn’s medical scans and was of the opinion that the trauma which led to the swelling of Nayshawn’s brain occurred … Furthermore, *443 the uncontradicted evidence established that Nayshawn’s injuries could not have occurred accidentally.

Brown v. Brown

188 N.C. App. 164 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jan 15, 2008

The record establishes that the trial court considered the verified motion, response, and brief as affidavits, and treated defendant's motion as one for summary judgment. … to Plaintiff's counsel for the drafting of QDRO(s) to divide qualified plan(s) (Decretal § 1C).

N.C. Dep't of Envtl. Quality v. TRK Dev., LLC

259 N.C. App. 597 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · May 15, 2018

could not be estopped from revoking the permit because “the planned usage was illegal from its inception” and “a contrary decision would require an acceptance of the paradoxical proposition that a citizen can acquire immunity … Here, the ALJ’s findings established that TRK was in violation of the Solid Waste Management Act.

State v. Ash

169 N.C. App. 715 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Apr 19, 2005

[T]he court is unconvinced that the defendant clearly and unequivocally asserted his right to remain silent.” … App. 146 , 292 S.E.2d 744 (overwhelming evidence of the defendant’s guilt qualifies error as harmless since it could not have affected the outcome), cert. denied and appeal dismissed, 306 N.C. 744 , 295 S.E.2d 480 (1982).

Stephens v. Dortch

147 N.C. App. 429 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Dec 4, 2001

‘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.

State v. Shore

258 N.C. App. 660 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Apr 3, 2018

Second, the witness must be “qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education.” … She had also been qualified as an expert in child sexual abuse in Georgia over twenty times and once in North Carolina.

SBA, INC. v. City of Asheville City Council

141 N.C. App. 19 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Dec 19, 2000

Such issues, “as to which conflicting evidence was presented, are of the type that zoning boards are typically qualified to resolve.” Id. at 85. … Rather, petitioners’ own evidence establishes that their intent was to fill a gap and improve existing coverage.

Palmetto RTC

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · May 21, 2025

Palmetto’s planned entitlement and development of the property was clearly contemplated by the contract and constituted part of its consideration and performance, rather than a separate and unrelated service. … FIELDEN Opinion of the Court statute and does not qualify as “registering notice” under § 47B-4, as it is not indexed by the Register of Deeds and is not a “claim to property.”

Midkiff v. Compton

204 N.C. App. 21 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · May 18, 2010

Thereafter, plaintiff’s conduct during the course of the [malpractice] action clearly establishes a waiver of her physician-patient privilege. ... … Thereafter, plaintiff’s conduct during the course of the [malpractice] action clearly establishes a waiver of her physician-patient privilege. . . .

Holton v. Holton

258 N.C. App. 408 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Mar 20, 2018

was properly converted into one of summary judgment where the plaintiff asserting a negligence action against the town merely referenced in his complaint an insurance policy allegedly waiving the town’s governmental immunity … affirmative defense of release, even though the plaintiff “failed to specifically plead the fraud he relie[d] on in avoidance of the release” defense); see also id. at 578, 299 S.E.2d at 281– 82 (“The materials on file clearly