Case law

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

State v. Bridges

107 N.C. App. 668 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Oct 20, 1992

Testimony by a properly qualified witness on hair identification and comparison is admissible if relevant, State v. … State, 399 S.W.2d 268, 270 (1966), that “[a]dmission of the unsubstantial, speculative testimony on probabilities was clearly erroneous.”

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.”).

Whitfield v. Laboratory Corp. of America

158 N.C. App. 341 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jun 17, 2003

Plaintiff testified that she clearly remembered the incident and that LeBlang “was mashing very hard on my back.” On 15 July 1998, Dr. … Huh is qualified to provide ongoing treatment to plaintiff, which are supported by competent evidence in the record of Dr. Huh’s training and experience.

Stewart v. Southeastern Regional Medical Center

142 N.C. App. 456 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Mar 20, 2001

Therefore, plaintiffs’ cause of action as against the Robeson County defendants, and therefore their cause of action as against all defendants named in this unified action, clearly first arose in Robeson County. … Rule 9(j) was “intended, in part, to protect defendants from having to defend frivolous medical malpractice actions” by requiring that a qualified medical expert review a potential plaintiffs complaint. Webb v.

In re: West

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Apr 15, 2026

Abigail qualified under the 2019 will and was issued letters as Executrix of Pam’s estate. … Uncontroverted testimony established Propounder drove Pam to meet with her established attorney, Mr. Stanaland, in October of 2019 upon Pam’s request. Pam met with Mr. Stanaland alone. Mr.

Johnson v. Phoenix Mutual Life Insurance

44 N.C. App. 210 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Dec 18, 1979

The “placement fee” was clearly in the nature of a commission for obtaining a lender for KVC’s permanent loan. … Cameron, however, argues that prior case law and the qualifying language of G.S. 754.1(b) referring to “buyers and sellers” renders Chapter 75 inapplicable to the present action.

Hamilton v. Freeman

147 N.C. App. 195 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Nov 20, 2001

When Hamilton entered DOC’s custody, however, DOC determined that Hamilton did not qualify for CYO status under North Carolina General Statutes and refused to consider her for immediate parole. … It is well established that a judgment of a Superior Court must be honored unless the judgment is void. See Worthington v. Wooten, 242 N.C. 88, 92 , 86 S.E.2d 767, 770 (1955).

State v. Baldwin

139 N.C. App. 65 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jul 18, 2000

Defendant in this case used a sawed-off shotgun during the crime, and a shotgun has the “destructive capabilities” to be a qualifying weapon under this aggravating factor. … App. at 334 , 293 S.E.2d at 661 ; (2) “not essential to the establishment of elements of the offense,” see Teague, 60 N.C.

Skinner v. Preferred Credit

172 N.C. App. 407 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Aug 16, 2005

The Trust is engaged in substantial activity within the State of North Carolina such that jurisdiction clearly exists under N.C.G.S. § l-75.4(l)(d). ii. … Clearly, it is more convenient for plaintiffs to have their claims heard in a North Carolina forum.

State v. Lowery

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jul 6, 2021

App. 449, 508 S.E.2d 1(1998) (statements following an assault qualifying as an excited utterance). … Lemons, 352 N.C. 87, 91, 530 S.E.2d 542, 544 (2000) (“While [the] defendant clearly objected to the admission of . . . statements . . . on evidentiary grounds, we are unable to find any indication that at

Irving v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education

230 N.C. App. 265 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Nov 5, 2013

It is the transportation specialist’s responsibility to obtain approved, qualified drivers for field trips. Activity Buses/Vans 1. … School bus. - A vehicle whose primary purpose is to transport school students over an established route to and from school for the regularly scheduled school day, that is equipped with alternately flashing red lights on the

State v. Llamas-Hernandez

189 N.C. App. 640 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Apr 15, 2008

In light of the lab report confirming that it was cocaine, the admission of the officer's statement was clearly not plain error. … The mere "similarity" of the kilogram of white powder established by laboratory tests to be cocaine to the 55 grams is not sufficient to establish the 55 grams to be cocaine, a controlled substance.

Ingle v. Allen

71 N.C. App. 20 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Nov 6, 1984

His will dated 9 February 1971 was admitted to probate, and plaintiff and defendant Carnell Ingle Allen qualified as co-executrices of the will. … Smith, 261 N.C. 278 , 134 S.E. 2d 331 (1964), along with his failure to prevent the consummation of the sale constituted nonfeasance and were clearly detrimental to the plaintiff.

State v. Wilson

197 N.C. App. 154 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · May 19, 2009

Far from establishing the reliability of her statement to the police, Daughtridge’s testimony raised questions about the accuracy of her statement because, due to her mental state, she was “liable to say anything.” … As in Southern, the trial court’s decision not to reinstruct on self-defense was not an abuse of discretion, and therefore clearly did not amount to plain error. Id.

Schroeder v. The Oak Grove Farm Homeowners Ass'n

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Apr 16, 2024

If Plaintiffs establish that the chickens were household pets, they must also demonstrate as a matter of law they were not using their household pets for commercial purposes. … I do not believe that they qualify as household pets.

Yeun-Hee Juhnn v. Do-Bum Juhnn

242 N.C. App. 58 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jul 7, 2015

Moreover, the email from the Family Court Administrator does not qualify as a certificate of service under Frank and, thus, defendant was not "served" on 17 February 2014 under Rule 3(c)(2). … It is well established by this Court that where a trial court's findings of fact are not challenged on appeal, they are deemed to be supported by competent evidence and are binding on appeal.

Schroeder v. The Oak Grove Farm Homeowners Ass'n

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Apr 16, 2024

I do not believe that they qualify as household pets. … We must determine if defendants’ rental activity qualifies as a business or commercial purpose in violation of the covenant.

State v. Womble

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Apr 20, 2021

In reviewing these statutes, we are guided by several well-established principles and precedents of statutory construction. … Federal law requires all states participating in CODIS to establish expungement provisions. 34 U.S.C. § 12592 (d)(2)(A) (2018). 34 U.S.C. § 12592 does not specify the specific procedure states must establish

Hendrix v. Town of West Jefferson

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Aug 18, 2020

allegedly defamatory statement; rather, he argues his Complaint should be read to state a claim against Defendants on the basis Chief Rose was acting within the course 2 No party raises the issue of government immunity … The Supreme Court characterized the incident: “This was clearly a conversation between the two individuals as to an event that had passed, and, as stated, could in no sense be considered as within the course and scope