Case law

Holt v. N.C. Dep't of Transp.

245 N.C. App. 167 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Feb 2, 2016

As our Court of Appeals noted ..., [t]he doctrine of superseding, or intervening, negligence is well established in our law. … We *185 have simply applied well-established standards to the facts before us.

State v. Graham

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Mar 17, 2020

Our Supreme Court held that: [The victim’s] testimony clearly indicated a course of continuing sexual abuse by the defendant. … Code Ann. § 16-6-3 but does not constitute an offense, or only qualifies as a Class C felony, under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-27.25.

State v. Sheffield

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Apr 5, 2022

Here, the trial court erred by entering automatic lifetime SBM based on the parties’ and the trial court’s mistaken belief that Defendant was guilty of a qualifying offense. … In fact, evidence of the presence of the Bibles in the victim’s apartment was introduced through photographs of the apartment, including one that clearly depicted the Bibles on a bookshelf.

Smith v. Rodgers

263 N.C. App. 662 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Feb 5, 2019

Rodgers qualified as the personal representative of Mr. … The tort claims, unlike the declaratory judgment claim, are not clearly within the holdings of Painter and Watson.

In re M.A.E.

242 N.C. App. 384 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jul 21, 2015

As Respondents each note, "[t]he trial court must not consider the corroborative nature of the statement when determining whether it qualifies as residual hearsay." State v. … The facts that establish Eddie and Eve's status as abused under N.C.

Cebula v. The Givens Estates, Inc.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jul 15, 2014

lthough normally the denial of a motion to dismiss is interlocutory and not immediately appealable, this Court has held that the doctrine of sovereign immunity … As the undisputed evidence clearly reflects, Plaintiff did not read the residence and services agreement before signing it.

State v. Tysinger

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Dec 15, 2020

However, when discussing Mindy’s Alford plea, Defendant stated: It’s a guilty plea with an asterisk, one in which she is clearly an interested party. … She has been granted quasi immunity in exchange for her testimony. And she in one breath says I’ve pled guilty to this.

State v. Baker

65 N.C. App. 430 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Dec 20, 1983

The defendant prior to trial, on the basis that the affidavit accompanying the search warrant set forth insufficient facts to establish probable cause, made a motion to suppress the evidence obtained from the searches of … The defendant’s motion fails to show that due diligence was used and the proper means employed to procure the testimony of as yet unnamed persons to qualify to speak with authority on the identical subject which was revealed

State v. Joyner

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Aug 2, 2022

¶8 After Defendant was taken into custody, Meeks asked Wayne Scott, later qualified by the trial court as an expert in roofing repair and insulation, to inspect the roof of her house. … For a waiver of one’s right to confrontation to be effective, it “must be clearly established that there was ‘an intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right or privilege.’ ” Brookhart, 384 U.S

State v. Bodden

190 N.C. App. 505 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · May 20, 2008

Even if the admission of the nine-millimeter bullet was error, in ■ order to reverse the trial court, the appellant must establish the error was prejudicial. N.C. Gen. … Ed. 2d at 195 n.6 (“Although many dying declarations may not be testimonial, there is authority for admitting even those that clearly are.

State v. Flood

221 N.C. App. 247 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jun 19, 2012

Clearly the person who committed that act knew it was lethal, and was intended to kill. … Defendant’s request that Downey be granted limited immunity was denied.

Whitehurst v. East Carolina Univ.

257 N.C. App. 938 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Feb 6, 2018

Whitehurst’s violations in the present case clearly do not rise to the level of severity present in Blackburn. … ECU Opinion of the Court “ ‘Unacceptable personal conduct does not necessarily establish just cause for all types of discipline.’ ” Harris, ___ N.C.

CAROLINA FOREST ASS'N, INC. v. White

198 N.C. App. 1 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jul 7, 2009

App. at 63 , 590 S.E.2d at 305 (holding that “[a] telephone call, absent extenuating circumstances, does not qualify as application to the court”). … Such thinking clearly underlies Defendants’ repeated contentions'that the trial court in this case erroneously failed to honor decisions made by the presiding judge in Montgomery County.

N.C. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. Hull

251 N.C. App. 429 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Dec 30, 2016

Defendants claimed Branham qualified as an underinsured motorist under the Farm Bureau Policy and asserted a UIM claim. … North Carolina law clearly states the provisions of N.C. Gen.

State v. McAllister

190 N.C. App. 289 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · May 6, 2008

SBI Special Agent Lucy Milks, who was qualified as an expert in trace evidence analysis, testified that she determined that Pender 45 and 72 were two “Negroid body hairs.” … We conclude that this undisputed evidence clearly establishes the chain of custody for Pender 15 and 115.

Blanchard v. Blanchard

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Sep 21, 2021

Mother contends that Balawejder was decided contrary to the prior established precedent of our appellate courts and, therefore, does not control on the issue before us. … In Gibbons, this Court held: Here, the trial court’s decision to award attorneys fees was clearly affected by the outcome of the judgment from which plaintiffs appealed.

Sound Rivers

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jun 2, 2020

“[U]nless clearly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation’s plain language[,]” we defer to “an  SOUND RIVERS, INC. V. N.C. DEP’T OF ENVTL. … As discussed by the lead opinion, the agency’s interpretations of its own regulations in question are not clearly erroneous.

Judd v. Tilghman Med. Assocs.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jul 21, 2020

“To qualify for relief under Rule 60(b)(6), a movant must satisfy a three-part test: (1) extraordinary circumstances exist, (2) justice demands the setting aside of the judgment, and (3) the defendant has a meritorious … “Although it is clearly the better practice for trial courts to make explicit findings of fact with respect to the elements of Rule 60(b)(1), . . . the trial court’s failure to do so here does not require reversal.”

Garrett v. The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.

260 N.C. App. 155 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jul 3, 2018

does not in itself preclude the Commission from making an award for total disability if it finds upon supported evidence that plaintiff because of other preexisting conditions is not qualified … She argues that this evidence clearly establishes that her refusal to return to work as a Carcass Trucker was justified.

State v. Mazur

817 S.E.2d 919 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Sep 18, 2018

Under plain error review, "a defendant must establish that the trial court committed error and that absent this error, the jury would have probably reached a different result." State v. … O'Neal was qualified by the contextual paragraph in which the trial court stated: "For you to find the Defendant guilty of [felony stalking], the State must prove three things beyond a reasonable doubt ....