Case law

Terasaka v. AT & T

174 N.C. App. 735 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Dec 6, 2005

Baker refused to address, it appears that plaintiff should be seen by a doctor qualified to diagnose pain disorders. There is no evidence that plaintiff has reached maximum medical improvement. (Emphasis added). … Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 359 N.C. 403 , 610 S.E.2d 374 (2005) (per curiam), it is not "the role of this Court to comb through the testimony and view it in the light most favorable to the defendant, when the Supreme Court has clearly

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.

Matter of Environment. Management Com'n

341 S.E.2d 588 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Apr 1, 1986

The opinions were elicited from qualified experts in accordance with the rules of evidence and appellants were allowed sufficient opportunity for cross-examination. … Clearly, these findings address G.S. 162A-7(c)(2).

State v. Borders

236 N.C. App. 149 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Sep 2, 2014

In this section, we first set forth the facts established at the hearing concerning Defendant’s motion to suppress. … Butts being qualified as an expert in the field of forensic pathology, but did unsuccessfully object to Dr. Tracy being qualified as an expert in forensic pathology. Dr.

In re B.L.

824 S.E.2d 927 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Mar 19, 2019

H. does not qualify as Ben's "relative" for purposes of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-903(a1), inasmuch as her son, Mr. C., is not Ben's biological father. … s son established a familial relationship between Ms. H. and Ben. Ms. Owen noted that Ms. H.'s grandson and Ben had never met.

State v. Moss

824 S.E.2d 925 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Mar 19, 2019

Stephanie testified her view was not obstructed, and she could clearly see what went on between the two men. She then saw Defendant's "arm come out of the vehicle" and into her husband's chest. … The record established animosity existed between the two. Defendant does not dispute having stabbed Odom.

Swan Quarter Farms, Inc. v. Spencer

133 N.C. App. 106 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · May 4, 1999

Plaintiff next argues that both the Spencers and their predecessor in interest, Federal, had actual and constructive notice of the defect in the deed and neither qualify for protection as bona fide purchasers for value without … The Court stated that its “previous opinions clearly establish that defendant Swan Quarter Farms, Inc. is the owner in fee simple of the property in dispute. ...” Poore v. Swan Quarter Farms, Inc., 119 N.C.

Glynne v. Wilson Medical Center

236 N.C. App. 42 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Sep 2, 2014

Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 6(b), are those established by the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure. Chicora Country Club, Inc. v. Town of Erwin, 128 N.C. … In addition, the Supreme Court has clearly held that “carelessness or negligence or ignorance of the rules of procedure . . . does not constitute ‘excusable neglect.’” Briley v.

Lake Toxaway Community Association, Inc. v. RYF Enterprises, LLC

226 N.C. App. 483 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Apr 16, 2013

It is well established that “[t]he essence of any contract is the mutual assent of both parties to the terms of the agreement so as to establish a meeting of the minds.” Snyder v. … Clearly, Bendel’s expertise and testimony regarding the necessity for repairs and maintenance on the Lake Toxaway dam assisted the trial court judge.

Fed. Point Yacht Club Ass'n, Inc. v. Moore

233 N.C. App. 298 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Apr 1, 2014

However, a permanent injunction that prohibits contact between defendant and others without establishing specific boundaries as to when, where, and how the injunction applies is overly broad. … Although some of these categories are clearly limited in terms of scope, the majority of these categories are not.

State v. Meadows

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · May 7, 2025

Defendant’s counsel clearly stated to the jury that defendant did indeed go with Ducc and Chapo to the victim’s house, albeit apparently under duress. … Even so, this admission does not qualify as an admission of guilt. See State v. Wiley, 355 N.C. 592, 620, 565 S.E.2d 22, 42 (2002) (“Admitting a fact is not equivalent to an admission of guilt.”).

State v. Downey

200 N.C. App. 436 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Oct 20, 2009

Furthermore, defendant has not established how the alleged variance affected his defense, and therefore, the policy of leniency governs. Brown, 178 N.C. App. at 195 , 631 S.E.2d at 53 . III. … Warren clearly made statements pertaining to B.P.'s credibility based on her inconsistent statements regarding penile penetration. Though Dr.

MATTER OF McDONALD

72 N.C. App. 234 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jan 15, 1984

Stack was better qualified than the trial court to form an opinion as to the respondents' parenting abilities. This assignment of error is overruled. … Clearly, it was not improper for the trial court to consider Judge Jones' order, and incorporate that prior order into the orders terminating respondents' parental rights.

Walsh v. Cornerstone Health Care, P.A.

265 N.C. App. 672 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jun 4, 2019

Klass entered an order requiring the parties to “confer and select . . . a qualified and capable forensic e-discovery vendor for the purpose of collecting and cataloging electronically stored communications, specifically … It is well established that “the [party] against whom sanctions are to be imposed must be advised in advance of the charges against [it].” Griffin v. Griffin, 348 N.C. 278, 280, 500 S.E.2d 437, 439 (1998).

Legette v. Scotland Memorial Hospital

181 N.C. App. 437 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Feb 6, 2007

Currin did not cite any established medical techniques or review any studies establishing that a single incident can aggravate pre-existing lymphedema. Defendants also argue that Dr. … ... (2) Is the witness testifying at trial qualified as an expert in that area of testimony? ... (3) Is the expert’s testimony relevant?”

Crook v. KRC Management Corp.

206 N.C. App. 179 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Aug 3, 2010

As a result, Plaintiffs clearly sought in their amended motion *187 to compel to obtain production of additional documents based on their 19 February 2007 discovery request. … For example, in Morris , a district court judge entered a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO), which was not appealed by either party. Subsequently, another judge entered an order modifying the terms of the QDRO.

Ward v. New Hanover County

175 N.C. App. 671 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Feb 7, 2006

This is especially true where a statute establishes ... a procedure whereby matters of regulation and control are first addressed by commissions and agencies particularly qualified for the purpose. … Article VII allows “[t]he original applicants [issued a special use permit], their successors or their assignee [to] make minor changes in the [permitted special structure or use] provided the necessity for these changes is clearly

State v. Smith

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Aug 20, 2025

To establish “plain error, a defendant must demonstrate that a fundamental error occurred at trial. … “[T]he jury should not . . . consider[ ] the proportionality of [the] defendant’s force unless the jury found that either (1) [the] defendant did not qualify to invoke the castle doctrine, or (2) [the] defendant qualified

Lippard v. Holleman

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · May 19, 2020

HOLLEMAN Opinion of the Court “The Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment prohibit any ‘law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting … Lippard]’s actions been clearly demonstrated to her and to you as wrong according to the Scriptures? [2].

State v. Meadows

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Mar 19, 2025

Defendant’s counsel clearly stated to the jury that defendant did indeed go with Ducc and Chapo to the victim’s house, albeit apparently under duress. … Even so, this admission does not qualify as admission of guilt. See State v. Wiley, 355 N.C. 592, 620, 565 S.E.2d 22, 42 (2002) (“Admitting a fact is not equivalent to an admission of guilt.”).