Case law

Hall v. Henderson Cnty.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jun 3, 2026

Carmichael, a licensed appraiser, was qualified as an expert witness with no objection by Petitioners. … The limitations of the methodology were clearly set out, and the Board was given information allowing it to determine the appropriate weight to give the evidence.

Supplee v. Miller-Motte Business College

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Feb 3, 2015

Our case law establishes that “[s]imple breach of contract . . . do[es] not qualify as unfair or deceptive acts, but rather must be characterized by some type of egregious or aggravating circumstances before the statute … After thoughtful review, we find that the jury’s award of damages and the amount of damages were clearly a matter of public record. Mr.

In Re the Appeal of North Carolina Forestry Foundation, Inc.

35 N.C. App. 414 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Mar 7, 1978

We do hold, however, that the use to which the Foundation put its Forest in Onslow County did not qualify it as a “protected natural area.” … Even if the Foundation as owner of the property is, as required by the statute, “[a] nonprofit, life saving, first aid, or rescue squad operation,” it does not qualify for the exemption.

In re: K.M.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Feb 2, 2021

[K.M.]’s current acts clearly show that . . . he can benefit there with further treatment whether that’s back in YDC, if he’s going to get that, or another program. … ¶ 14 In this case, evidence was presented to the trial court establishing K.M.’s mental health issues.

In Re NG

186 N.C. App. 1 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Sep 18, 2007

The evidence clearly compels a contrary finding. … No case plan was established or restated for N.G.

In Re DG

191 N.C. App. 752 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Aug 5, 2008

This response attached a copy of a letter from counsel for Foothills, stating that under federal law, D.G. was not a "qualified alien" and that it could not provide funding for "custodial sex offender treatment." … This statute clearly states that a prior order can be modified or vacated in light of changes in circumstances, and is not tied exclusively to the needs of the juvenile.

Britt v. Britt

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jul 19, 2022

Defendant acknowledged that this list contained “some errors” and confirmed that a qualified accounting professional had not reviewed it. … Further, Defendant conceded at trial that the list of expenses contained errors, and that a qualified accounting professional had not reviewed it.

Klein v. Klein

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Oct 3, 2023

It was used to purchase the marital home of the parties; this purchase was clearly for the joint benefit of the parties. … However, Husband does not clearly articulate an argument.

Universal Cab Co. v. City of Charlotte

787 S.E.2d 464 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · May 10, 2016

Plaintiff asserted that the criteria was relaxed so that defendant City Cab, a newly formed company, could qualify as a candidate. … Some defendants also argue that the complaint should be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) for failing to adequately allege the causes of action or because individual defendants are entitled to public official immunity.

Leftwich v. Gaines

134 N.C. App. 502 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Aug 17, 1999

Gaines and Mount Airy argue that plaintiffs evidence failed to establish fraud. … The protection afforded is independent of, and different from, sovereign immunity. See Sperry, 73 N.C. App. at 125 , 325 S.E.2d at 644 .

State v. Thompson

254 N.C. App. 220 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jun 20, 2017

Defendant’s argument that he was unable to conduct voir dire to establish authenticity or purpose of the document is misplaced. … However, as discussed above, this error was clearly judicial. - 13 -  STATE V.

Davis & Taft Architecture, P.A. v. DDR-Shadowline

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Nov 19, 2019

In short, Shadowline does not qualify as an “owner” because no improvement was made to its real property, and Davis & Taft therefore did not have a contract with any owner pursuant to § 44A-8. … Contracts § 848 (2011) (“A third-party beneficiary who is clearly designated as such is seldom left without a remedy . . . .” (emphasis added)).

Plasman v. Decca Furniture (USA), Inc.

253 N.C. App. 484 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · May 16, 2017

Qualified Pers., Inc., 294 N.C. 200, 208, 240 S.E.2d 338, 343 (1978). - 13 -  BOLIER & COMPANY, LLC V. … Although this Court ultimately held that defendant’s appeal affected a substantial right, it also held that defendant was not immune to suit.

Sanders v. American Spirit Insurance

135 N.C. App. 178 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Oct 5, 1999

App. 650 , 474 S.E.2d 146 (1996), this Court addressed defendant insurer’s contention that a purported rejection, not on the Rate Bureau form, nonetheless “clearly and unambiguously rejected] . . . … It is well established that this Court is required to follow decisions of our Supreme Court until that Court orders otherwise. See Dunn v. Pate, 334 N.C. 115, 118 , 431 S.E.2d 178, 180 (1993) (citation omitted).

Lassiter v. TOWN OF SELMA

197 N.C. App. 758 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jul 7, 2009

Our Supreme Court has set forth three elements plaintiff must prove to establish the existence of an occupational disease under N.C. Gen. … Clearly the award of medical expenses directly related to Lyme Disease was proper.

Integon National Insurance v. Phillips

212 N.C. App. 623 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jun 21, 2011

It is well established that “[a]n insurance policy is a contract to be construed under the rules of law applicable to other written con *626 tracts.” Chavis v. Southern Life Ins. Co., 76 N.C. … If no definition is given, non-technical words are to be given their meaning in ordinary speech, unless the context clearly indicates another meaning was intended.

Schooldev East

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jul 19, 2022

Nine witnesses, three of which qualified and were received as experts, testified for Petitioner at the Town’s public hearing. … Upon de novo review Petitioner clearly met its burden of production to show its compliance with § 3.7.5 of the Town’s UDO to establish a prima facie case for entitlement of the permits.

State v. Marshall

94 N.C. App. 20 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jun 6, 1989

Further, defendant argues that the officers supplied false information in the application in order to establish probable cause. … The evidence is clearly relevant.

Dockery v. McMillan

85 N.C. App. 469 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · May 5, 1987

Contrary to the Deputy Commissioner’s conclusion, an employer-employee relationship clearly existed between the deceased worker and his son, a sub-contractor. … The relationship of employer-employee “is essentially contractual in its nature, and is to be determined by the rules governing the establishment of contracts, express or implied.” Hollowell v.

State v. Oliver

52 N.C. App. 483 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jun 16, 1981

The court very clearly instructed the jury to disregard this testimony. … When the court realized its mistake in over *488 ruling these objections, it very clearly explained to the jury why it had made this error.