Case law

Ehrenhaus v. Baker

216 N.C. App. 59 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Oct 4, 2011

The requirements of establishing a class action have been established by our Supreme Court in Crow. … (a) A lawyer shall not make an agreement for, charge, or collect an illegal or clearly excessive fee or charge or collect a clearly excessive amount for expenses.

Ashe Cty. v. Ashe Cty. Plan. Bd.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Aug 2, 2022

Clearly, the elected board in a county has discretion to amend its development regulations for what it believes to be in the public good or in its political interest. … The barn is not located in an established commercial area.

State v. Scott

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jul 20, 2021

allegations of an evidentiary nature, asserts facts supporting every element of a criminal offense and the defendant’s commission thereof with sufficient precision clearly … Adding them thus did not qualify as an amendment prohibited by N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-923(e). B.

In re: M.M.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jun 16, 2020

Sheaffer to determine if he was qualified to testify as an expert in psychology and child and family evaluations. … She exhibited signs and symptoms consistent with this diagnosis including inability to clearly describe the pain being located throughout her abdomen instead of one specific location, inability

Martin v. Martin

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jul 16, 2019

MARTIN Opinion of the Court required to establish the plaintiff’s cause of action or the defendant’s defense.” (citation omitted))). … Further, no other evidence exists in the record to support a finding that Defendant-Husband’s hacking of Plaintiff-Wife’s email account, although clearly reprehensible, caused Plaintiff-Wife to suffer substantial emotional

State v. Wall

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jan 21, 2026

Under plain-error review, a defendant must show an error at trial so “fundamental” as to “establish prejudice—that, after examination of the entire record, the error had a probable impact on the jury’s finding that the … WALL Opinion of the Court where the jury is “apparently as well[-]qualified as the witness to draw the inferences and conclusion[s] from the fact that [the witness] expressed in his

Barton v. Barton

215 N.C. App. 235 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Sep 6, 2011

“On appeal of a trial court’s decision confirming an arbitration award, we accept the trial court’s findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous and review its conclusions of law de novo.” First Union Secs., Inc. v. … The arbitrator determined that on the date of separation, the value of the marital property component of the McClatchy Company 401(k) plan was $55,500.00. *248 Having established that defendant’s McClatchy Company 401(k)

State v. Martin

244 N.C. App. 727 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jan 5, 2016

was based, generally, on his claims that his trial counsel was ineffective for: (1) failing to use testimony from Defendant’s first 2009 trial to impeach the witnesses during the second trial; (2) failing to obtain a qualified … Turvey, the proposed expert, had no medical training and because the testimony was clearly outside the scope of his competency.

Yurek v. Shaffer

198 N.C. App. 67 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jul 7, 2009

Unfitness, neglect, and abandonment clearly constitute conduct inconsistent with the protected status parents may enjoy. … However, at oral argument, Shaffer’s attorney admitted to this Court that plaintiffs in this case qualify as “relatives” under N.C.G.S. § 50-13.1(a).

State v. Duvall

50 N.C. App. 684 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Mar 3, 1981

When information is given the doctor by the patient in the course of treatment, there exists an assumption that the patient’s self-interest will ensure that the information is true, thus qualifying it for the basis of opinion … Fearing knew of the accident” (emphasis added) clearly relates to the preceding clause and other portions of the charge describing the accident as that “in which Cloice H. Creef was physically injured or killed.”

Ecim. v. Dept., Health and Human Svcs.

710 S.E.2d 245 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · May 3, 2011

a week and at its New Bern office two days a week. [1] In its application, ECIM indicated that the proposed mobile MRI scanner would primarily serve Carteret, Craven, Jones, Onslow, and Pamlico Counties, which generally qualify … NOTES [1] In addition, ECIM applied for authorization to install and operate the fixed MRI scanner that would become available in 2008 as well. [2] The previous decisions of this Court have clearly established that the 1999

State v. Watson

258 N.C. App. 347 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Mar 6, 2018

the reverse of the form in the section titled “ORDER OF COMMITMENT/APPEAL ENTRIES[,]” which would have either denoted notice of appeal of the judgment by Defendant or ordered “the sheriff or other qualified … North Carolina law clearly contemplates that our courts, both trial and appellate, may take judicial notice of documents filed in federal courts.

Cherney v. NORTH CAROLINA ZOOLOGICAL PARK

185 N.C. App. 203 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Aug 7, 2007

To establish actionable negligence, plaintiff must show that: (1) defendant failed to exercise due care in the performance of some legal duty owed to plaintiff under the circumstances; and (2) the negligent breach of such … Finding of fact numbered 18 is unchallenged, binding, and clearly shows the Commission properly applied the legal standards from both Nelson and Bolick. Id. This assignment of error is overruled. VI.

In re: D.A.H.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Apr 20, 2021

“A careful analysis of the totality of the circumstances surrounding the making of [the] Juvenile’s statement clearly indicate[d] . . . that [he] was not subject to the degree of restraint inherent in a formal … We hold that circumstances such as these can indeed qualify as custodial interrogations where Miranda warnings are required.

Proffitt v. Gosnell

809 S.E.2d 200 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Dec 19, 2017

plaintiff’s negligence so clearly that no other reasonable conclusion may be reached. … If a plaintiff-pedestrian had a duty “to yield the right-of-way [to an approaching driver] and all the evidence so clearly establishes the plaintiff-pedestrian’s failure to yield the right-of-way as one of the proximate

Bryant v. Adams

116 N.C. App. 448 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Oct 4, 1994

The application language of the Act states clearly that Chapter 99B “shall not be construed to amend or repeal” G.S. § 1-17. … From my experience, I have found that these dangers are not apparent to children or adults in the absence of instruction by a qualified instructor.”

Greensboro Scuba Sch., LLC v. Robertson

242 N.C. App. 383 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jul 21, 2015

As a result, there was uncontroverted evidence establishing that Dawson had used "offensive" and "abusive" language. … Mintz, clearly do not amount to defamation per se " and that this "would have been apparent to ... [p]laintiffs with [even] a cursory search of North Carolina" defamation law.

Hinton v. N.C. Dep't of Pub. Safety

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jul 5, 2022

The original order inadvertently included references to insubordination as unacceptable personal conduct, incidents, and disciplinary actions which clearly did not involve Mr. Hinton. … Unacceptable personal conduct does not necessarily establish just cause for all types of discipline.

Boyce v. N.C. State Bar

258 N.C. App. 567 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Apr 3, 2018

Our law clearly provides for declaratory relief in the interpretation of state statutes. Goldston v. State, 361 N.C. 26, 33, 637 S.E.2d 876, 881 (2006). … NORTH CAROLINA STATE BAR Opinion of the Court This is not to propose the State Bar and its officers and investigators are immune from consequences when they ignore a conflict

Adams v. Lovette

105 N.C. App. 23 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jan 7, 1992

This qualified statutory privilege applies to requested disclosures whether they are made during discovery or at trial. W. Shuford, *624 supra, § 26-7; cf. … "It is for the party objecting to discovery [of privileged information] to raise the objection in the first instance and he has the burden of establishing the existence of the privilege." 8 C. Wright & A.