Case law

State v. Mostafavi

253 N.C. App. 803 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jun 6, 2017

However, the phrase “simply as money” in the statute is followed by the qualifying language, “without specifying any particular coin, or treasury note, or bank note[,]” which clarifies that the statute is intended only … Ricks clearly held an indictment, which alleges the defendant obtained “U.S. Currency,” is legally sufficient to give the trial court jurisdiction.

PNE AOA Media, L.L.C. v. Jackson County

146 N.C. App. 470 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Oct 16, 2001

On 22 November 1999, DOT answered, responded to PNE’s petition, and moved to dismiss the complaint against it on the grounds of sovereign immunity, lack of subject matter jurisdiction, improper venue, and failure to state … Moreover, if the state law clearly shows a legislative intent to provide “a complete and integrated regulatory scheme to the exclusion of local regulationf]” in a particular area of law, then the local rules must be consistent

Poage v. Cox

265 N.C. App. 229 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · May 7, 2019

“‘Ordinarily, whether a witness qualifies as an expert is exclusively within the discretion of the trial judge.’” FormyDuval v. Bunn, 138 N.C. … Contrary to Defendants’ arguments, it is well- settled that a plaintiff need not establish direct evidence of proximate causation.

Pine v. Wal-Mart Assocs., Inc.

255 N.C. App. 321 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Sep 5, 2017

. __, 799 S.E.2d 838 (2017), and applied the presumption established by this Court in Parsons v. Pantry, Inc., 126 N.C. … This Court has further noted that “[w]hen expert opinion is based ‘merely upon speculation and conjecture,’ it cannot qualify as competent evidence of medical causation.” Carr, 218 N.C.

State v. Phillips

171 N.C. App. 622 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jul 19, 2005

Clearly, Canon 3(B)(7) of the ABA Model Code gives a great deal more protection to the parties than.does Canon 3(A)(4) of the N.C. Code of Judicial Conduct. … The practice of our courts commenting on relevant matters in the record that are not raised by the parties is well established by “noting in passing.” See, e.g., First Nat’l Bank of Lumberton v.

Wildcatt v. Smith

69 N.C. App. 1 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jun 19, 1984

Indian affairs on a reservation as is granted by Congress, [3] while the tribes retain powers inherent to a sovereign state, except as qualified and limited by Congress. [4] To ask what entity possesses subject matter jurisdiction … In light of the general rule of construction applicable to congressional statutes claimed to terminate Indian immunities—that doubts be resolved in favor of tribal self-government, see, e.g., White Mountain, supra —the Court's

Hall v. Hall

88 N.C. App. 297 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Dec 29, 1987

Plaintiffs Appeal Plaintiff first contends the court erred in concluding that the parties separated on 26 December 1983, thereby establishing that date as the date upon which the marital property was to be val- *299 ued. … Poindexter was not properly qualified as an expert. We disagree. “The decision to qualify a witness as an expert is ordinarily within the exclusive province of the trial judge or hearing officer.”

State v. Murray

229 N.C. App. 285 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Aug 20, 2013

However, “compliance with the facial requirements of Rule 901(a) does not mean ... that an exhibit automatically qualifies as relevant under Rule 401[.]” State v. Patterson, 103 N.C. … If one of Defendant’s sons was the seller, and if neither of the two men depicted in the photographs were, in actuality, Defendant’s sons, then their features clearly would not match the small portion of the seller’s lower

Wright v. Atl. Orthopedics, P.A.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Aug 5, 2014

Rather, our review of Rule 9(j) compliance is de novo, because such compliance clearly presents a question of law . . . . Barringer v. Wake Forest Univ. Baptist Med. Ctr., 197 N.C. … Jackson, clearly indicates that he did not feel the evidence demonstrated negligence on the part of Dr. Frueh or Atlantic Orthopedics. Instead, Dr.

Ira Ex Rel. Oppenheimer v. Brenner Companies, Inc.

107 N.C. App. 16 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jul 21, 1992

Clearly, the officers and directors of a corporation owe a fiduciary duty to their shareholders. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 55-35 (1982). Plaintiffs raise several questions regarding the defendants’ actions. … Stat. § 55-13-02 (b) now establishes the exclusivity of a dissenting shareholder’s remedy in challenging a corporation’s actions.

State v. Ross

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jun 17, 2014

App. 680, 685-86, 550 S.E.2d 174, 177 (2001) (“The Structured Sentencing Act clearly provides for judicial discretion in allowing the trial court to choose a minimum sentence within a specified range.”). … However, “[i]t is well established that the decision to impose consecutive or concurrent sentences is within the discretion of the trial judge and will not be overturned absent a showing

Stevenson v. Noel Williams Masonry, Inc.

148 N.C. App. 90 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Dec 28, 2001

However, those undisputed claims were paid in February, May and October 1998— long after the twenty-day deadline established by the executive secretary in his January 1998 order. … Since plaintiff had already paid for these medical expenses, they clearly do not fit the meaning of “not yet paid.”

Gaunt v. Pittaway

139 N.C. App. 778 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Aug 29, 2000

discuss whether the prior order must involve the same strict legal rights of the parties as those adjudged in the judgment, as defendants argue, but did state that an order depriving plaintiffs of one of their claims will qualify … Plaintiffs’ argument fails for the simple reason that medical professionals are expressly excluded from the scope of N.C.G.S. § 75-1.1(a) and thus it clearly does not follow that a statement by a medical professional, criminal

State v. Arnold

98 N.C. App. 518 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jun 5, 1990

Tart testified under a limited grant of immunity which required that he testify in the trial of any other defendants of the Arnold murder. … IX In her last assignment of error the defendant contends the trial court erred by not clearly limiting its conspiracy instructions to conspiracy to commit first degree murder.

State v. Elkins

210 N.C. App. 110 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Mar 1, 2011

Rule 704 “does allow admission of lay opinion evidence onultimate issues, but to qualify for admission the opinion must be helpful to the jury.” Mobley v. Hill, 80 N.C. … App. at 86 , 341 S.E.2d at 50 (1986), Rule 701 requires that, “to qualify for admission[,] the opinion [evidence] must be helpful to the jury.” Id. (citing N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 701).

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.

State v. Mincey

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Feb 6, 2024

clarification within a similar statute from our legislature, coupled with the present- tense language of the habitual felon statute, clearly indicates that courts are meant to examine the classifications of prior offenses … Wolfe, a defendant argued that one of the felonies the State presented did not qualify to achieve violent habitual felon status. 157 N.C. App. at 37.

Bicket v. McLean Securities, Inc.

124 N.C. App. 548 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Dec 3, 1996

This approval or disapproval of the Board of Directors shall be based on the standards of reputation, good moral standards, and creditworthiness previously established in the Rules and Regulations of Pinehurst Country Club … This interpretation is clearly consistent with the unambiguous language of the Final Consent Judgment.

Sulier v. Veneskey

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Oct 4, 2022

¶ 18 This section thus establishes jurisdiction over initial child custody determinations in various scenarios. … “Unfitness, neglect, and abandonment clearly constitute conduct inconsistent with the protected status parents may enjoy.” Id., 346 N.C. at 79, 484 S.E.2d at 534.

Townes v. Portfolio Recovery Assocs.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Dec 31, 2020

In the absence of anything which clearly indicates a contrary intent, the legislature is presumed to have used the statutory term under consideration in its judicially established meaning.” Simms v. … Instead, “[w]here [an entity qualifying for a tax exemption] possesses a sufficient interest in the property, . . . the property is said to belong to [that entity] even where legal