Case law

State v. Edwards

49 N.C. App. 547 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Dec 2, 1980

Defendant only interposed a general objection and did not make a special request to have the deputy qualified as an expert. This was insufficient to preserve an exception for our review. … A conviction of *559 armed robbery does not establish a defendant’s guilt of felonious assault. See also State v. Dammons, 293 N.C. 263 , 237 S.E. 2d 834 (1977).

Gaines Ex Rel. Hancox v. Cumberland County Hospital System, Inc.

203 N.C. App. 213 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Apr 6, 2010

The moving party carries the burden of establishing the lack of any triable issue. … However, we note that it is well established that “a person is not permitted to offer expert testimony on the appropriate standard of care unless he qualifies under the provisions of Rule 702(b)(2) of the Rules of Evidence

Fairfield Harbour Property Owners Ass'n v. Midsouth Golf, LLC

215 N.C. App. 66 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Aug 16, 2011

Defendant fails to cite, nor can we locate, a case in which a financial hardship qualified as a “radical change” occurring within a community. … Because language in the 1993 restrictive covenants clearly indicates that the restrictive covenants were not intended to afford reciprocal benefits upon the parties, Defendant’s argument is without merit.

Holliday v. Tropical Nut & Fruit Co.

242 N.C. App. 562 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Aug 18, 2015

The Court concluded that "the case at bar does not qualify for compensation ... under these rules or suggested guides." Id. In Chilton v. … Indeed, the testimony from Plaintiff, Stone, Bauer, Hatton, and Marshall clearly demonstrates that Tropical required its employees to attend the laser tag and bowling activities by both taking attendance and making employees

Schneider v. Brunk

72 N.C. App. 560 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Feb 5, 1985

Qualified Personnel, Inc., 294 N.C. 200 , 240 S.E.2d 338 (1978). … The right must be one which will clearly be lost or irremediably adversely affected if the order is not reviewable before final judgment.

Bartlett Milling Co., LP v. Walnut Grove Auction and Realty Co., Inc.

192 N.C. App. 74 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Aug 19, 2008

Moretz further qualifies this statement by stating that whether violation of a statute constitutes unfair and deceptive trade practices generally depends on the facts of the case, and “when it offends established public policy … The party moving for summary judgment ultimately has the burden of establishing the lack of any triable issue of fact.

Matter of Lucas

94 N.C. App. 442 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jul 5, 1989

Fisher never treated the child is not determinative of whether his examination qualifies under Rule 803(4). See United States v. … Fisher’s examination of the child did prepare him for his testimony at trial, it was clearly not the sole purpose for the examination.

Ramsey v. Ramsey

264 N.C. App. 431 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Mar 19, 2019

And the arguments in the brief clearly describe why Husband believes the trial court erred in entering its Contempt Order. … The trial court held Husband in civil contempt for “failure to abide by the Judgment provision that he immediately file a Qualified Domestic Relations Order[.]”

State v. Sheetz

46 N.C. App. 641 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · May 20, 1980

Thus, assuming arguendo that the witness was improperly qualified as an expert, his testimony would still support denial of the motion to dismiss. State v. Cuthrell, supra, does not establish a contrary rule. … When this evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the State, an inference of guilt clearly arises.

Penegar v. United Parcel Serv.

815 S.E.2d 391 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · May 1, 2018

Agopsowicz, who admits he is not qualified to render an opinion on causation in connection with decedent’s development of mesothelioma. 52. … “The final method, as set forth in the last sentence, clearly may not be used unless there has been a finding that unjust results would occur by using the previously enumerated methods.”

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.

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.

Self-Help Ventures Fund v. Custom Finish, LLC

199 N.C. App. 743 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Sep 15, 2009

Accordingly, we apply the rules established at common law to resolve the questions presented in the instant case. … Therefore, the Court presumes that defendants intended what the language of the Guaranties clearly expresses. Relevant provisions of the Note state: 1.

State v. Coffey

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Dec 15, 2020

App. 351, 356–57, 815 S.E.2d 736, 740–41 (2018) (holding that a proper foundation was established at the time the challenged expert provided her opinion because her testimony demonstrated that she was a qualified expert … Clearly, defendant was on parole for some type of concerning misconduct, which required permission for defendant to attend the church.

Quevedo-Woolf v. Overholser

261 N.C. App. 387 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Sep 18, 2018

[E.R.Q.]’s condition is causing some learning issues and she is especially qualified to care for [E.R.Q.] … It is established that “[v]isitation privileges are but a lesser degree of custody.”

Bentley v. North Carolina Insurance Guaranty Ass'n

107 N.C. App. 1 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jul 21, 1992

Other jurisdictions have also held insurance guaranty associations to be immune from suit arising from their own tortious conduct in settling claims after insolvency of an insurer. Isaacson v. California Ins. Guar. … Furthermore, this Court has stated, It is clearly not the duty of an insurer or its agent to inquire and inform an insured as to all parts of his policy: We cannot approve the position that in the absence of a request it

Hest Technologies, Inc. v. State Ex Rel. Perdue

219 N.C. App. 308 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Mar 6, 2012

When plaintiffs' customers make a qualifying purchase of plaintiffs' products, they receive one or more sweepstakes entries. … This necessitates reviewing the statute under established First Amendment doctrine. B.

In Re Clapp

137 N.C. App. 14 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Mar 21, 2000

The State’s evidence at the adjudicatory hearing tended to establish the following: On 28 July 1997, the juvenile, age 11, was playing at the home of M.H., age 3. … Therefore, we conclude that any failure to qualify M.H. or J.H. was harmless given the likelihood that their statements would have been admitted as substantive evidence.

Mole v. The City of Durham

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Oct 5, 2021

Constitution, a public employee must show that no other state law remedy is available and plead facts establishing three elements: (1) a clear, established rule … (recognizing “the legitimate governmental interest of providing a fair procedure that ensures qualified candidates move to the next stage of the promotional process”).

North Carolina Council of Churches v. State

120 N.C. App. 84 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Sep 5, 1995

Execution dates established pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 15-194 are set for not less than 60 days nor more than 90 days from the date of the hearing held to set the date of execution. N.C.G.S. § 15-194 (1983). … The denial of a motion to amend is reviewed for clearly shown abuse of discretion. House of Raeford Farms v. City of Raeford, 104 N.C. App. 280, 282 , 408 S.E.2d 885, 887 (1991).