Case law

State v. Brooks

83 N.C. App. 179 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Nov 4, 1986

Regarding items 3, 4 and 5 above, we hold that this evidence was clearly admissible under G.S. 8C-1, Rules 401 and 403. … This evidence established a prima facie conspiracy. See id.

State v. Washington

506 S.E.2d 283 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Oct 20, 1998

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 v. Golder

805 S.E.2d 175 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Sep 5, 2017

It is sufficient to clearly identify the crime being charged, apprise Defendant of this charge against him allowing preparation for trial, and preclude the State from putting Defendant in jeopardy more than once for the … contends in his brief that this indictment was fatally defective based upon the fact that it failed to specify the exact manner in which he allegedly violated Section 58-71-40, Defendant has failed to cite any authority establishing

Cawthorn v. Mission Hospital, Inc.

211 N.C. App. 42 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Apr 19, 2011

Loomis’ reliance on Plaintiff’s own “subjective” reports of her injuries and symptoms, it is well-established that a patient’s statements to her treating physician are reliable. See, e.g., Booker v. … Mikos was clearly aware of the subsequent, “specific traumatic” lifting incidents, she completely neglected to look into them further. Thus, when Ms.

State v. Morrison

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Aug 4, 2020

Mortenson was driving the truck that was hit by multiple .22 caliber projectiles, fired by Defendant, the State established Mr. Mortenson’s first- hand knowledge of the shooting incident. … Mortenson’s presence at the scene of the crime qualified him to present his personal perception of the event, including his perception of the gunfire. Mr.

State v. Marlow

229 N.C. App. 593 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Sep 17, 2013

Stat. § 15A-1022.1(e) excepts such requirements when “the context clearly indicates that they are inappropriate.” N.C. Gen. … Stat. § 14-27.4 (a)(l) does not qualify as an aggravated offense.” Id. at 301 , 702 S.E.2d at 348 .

Deerman v. Beverly California Corp.

135 N.C. App. 1 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Sep 21, 1999

Further, G.S. § 90-171.21 creates a “Board of Nursing” (the Board) charged, inter alia, with setting minimum standards for educational programs preparing persons for licen-sure under the Act, and with licensing qualified … Interestingly, had plaintiff allegedly been terminated in consequence of her refusal to violate the minimal requirements of her position as described by the General Assembly and the Board, a claim for wrongful termination would clearly

Cryan v. Nat'l Council of Young Men's Christian Ass'n of the United States of Am.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Nov 16, 2021

Qualified Pers., Inc., 294 N.C. 200, 207, 240 S.E.2d 338, 343 (1978) (quoting Greene v. Laboratories, Inc., 254 N.C. 680, 693, 120 S.E. 2d 82, 91 (1961)). … ¶ 13 Defendant is correct in its contention that the right to venue established by statute is a substantial right. See Gardner v.

Eatman Leasing, Inc. v. Empire Fire & Marine Insurance

145 N.C. App. 278 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Aug 7, 2001

The term “insured” is defined in part in the Excess Rental Policy as “any person or organization qualifying as an “insured” in the “Who is an Insured” provision of the primary insurance.” … Further, the policies clearly provide that supplementary payments are in addition to the policy limits.

State v. Ruffin

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Mar 5, 2025

At trial, the State called and qualified Cone, a forensic scientist with the Crime Lab, as an expert in drug analysis and identification. … Thus, Defendant has not established he was prejudiced by this alleged error. See State v.

State v. Wilson

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Nov 7, 2023

Stallings, which Defendant primarily relies upon for the argument that Sucato’s testimony was too internally inconsistent to qualify as substantial evidence, concerned the testimony of a witness who identified a suspect as … determining the defendant failed to establish a prima facie case.

State v. Bullock

95 N.C. App. 524 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Sep 19, 1989

To qualify for admission under Rule 804(b)(5), a “hearsay statement must possess ‘guarantees of trustworthiness’ that are equivalent to the other exceptions contained in Rule 804(b).” State v. … Dennis Sexton’s statement, and that there is a circumstantial guarantee of trustworthiness. *530 In reaching the last conclusion, the trial court clearly took into account the reason for the declarant’s unavailability.

Eisenberg v. Hammond

248 N.C. App. 136 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jul 5, 2016

Defendant’s attorney’s email was in writing, but it was not filed with the arbitrator, so it cannot qualify as a written objection under paragraph 20 of the consent order. … HAMMOND Opinion of the Court parties elected to draft an arbitration agreement and to conduct the arbitration under the terms they established.

Brunson v. Tatum

196 N.C. App. 480 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Apr 21, 2009

We hold this judgment meets all the requirements of G.S. 150B-51 and is clearly sufficient as a matter of law.”). Petitioner next contends that the superior court erred in applying the standard of review. … Consequently, under petitioner’s interpretation — that an “attempt” only occurs once the person in the driver’s seat has switched *487 on the ignition — every “attempt” to operate the car would also qualify as the completed

Capps v. SOUTHEASTERN CABLE

214 N.C. App. 225 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Aug 2, 2011

Put another way: *230 The distinction between an independent contractor and a servant, employee, or agent has been clearly drawn in numerous recent cases. … Insurance Requirements The record clearly establishes that Defendant Southeastern required Plaintiff to obtain an insurance policy that included a workers’ compensation component before he began work.

Brenner v. Little Red School House, Ltd.

47 N.C. App. 19 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jun 3, 1980

The doctrine of frustration has been firmly and definitely qualified in the more significant decisions by interjection and reiteration of the requirement that, to be *28 effective in discharging liability under a contract … Furniture Co., 264 N.C. 216, 217 , 141 S.E. 2d 292, 294 (1965), the Court held: The doctrine of frustration is clearly stated in Sale v.

In Re Estate of Skinner

248 N.C. App. 29 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jun 21, 2016

Clearly the subject assets were not intended to be used for Mrs. Skinner's future medical needs, and in ruling otherwise, the assistant clerk of court made an error of law. *37 V. Mr. … Therefore, as a general proposition, these expenditures were clearly within the Trust's definition of "special needs."

Perry-Griffin Foundation v. Proctor

107 N.C. App. 528 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Oct 6, 1992

A trial judge’s order granting a new trial may be reversed on appeal only in circumstances where an abuse of discretion is clearly shown. Id. … Boylan if he is so qualified with respect to the efforts put forth by the foundation on the appeal from Judge Reid’s Order to the Court of Appeals.

In re: M.T. & K.T.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Sep 6, 2022

Initially, Mark’s foster parents signed him up for daycare, necessitating immunizations, but the parents contacted DSS “and requested they cancel” the immunization appointment.8 Another time, shortly after … 8 These immunizations were standard childhood immunizations normally required for children in school or daycare in North Carolina well before the COVID-19 pandemic.

Robertson v. Hagood Homes, Inc.

160 N.C. App. 137 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Sep 2, 2003

Because “defendants failed to assign error to any of the Commission’s [other] findings of fact . . . these findings are conclusively established on appeal.” Johnson v. Herbie’s Place, 157 N.C. … While clearly not precedent for this Court, these holdings from other jurisdictions are persuasive.