Case law

Olympic Products Co. v. Roof Systems, Inc.

88 N.C. App. 315 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jan 5, 1988

Since the trial court granted a directed verdict finding Olympic contributorily negligent, we can affirm that verdict only if the “evidence, taken in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, so clearly establishes contributory … The evidence also tended to show that Mize delegated these activities because he did not feel qualified to undertake the project and was overseeing construction of another plant.

State v. Ray

149 N.C. App. 137 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Mar 5, 2002

Based on our Supreme Court's clearly delineated position regarding the validity of the short-form murder indictment, defendant's first assignment of error is overruled. II. Evidence A. … the trial court erred in overruling his objection to Detective Hendricks' opinion testimony that the lacerations on Harrington's hand "were not consistent ... with a traffic accident," because Detective Hendricks was not qualified

Exum v. Exum

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Apr 1, 2014

Qualified Personnel, Inc., 294 N.C. 200, 207, 240 S.E.2d 338, 343 (1978), and City of Raleigh v. Edwards, 234 N.C. 528, 529, 67 S.E.2d 669, 671 (1951)). … establish the existence of a substantial right, a “definite loss” must be  -14- established), disc review denied, 315 N.C. 389, 338 S.E.2d 878 (1986).

Viar v. N.C. Department of Transportation

162 N.C. App. 362 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Feb 3, 2004

Evidence is usually not required in order to establish and justify a finding that a party has failed to prove that which he affirmatively asserts. It usually occurs and is based on the absence or lack of evidence. … Ellis King, plaintiffs own witness, was qualified as an expert in traffic safety and testified that: (1) guardrails do not always stop vehicles; (2) a barrier could have put the Viar vehicle *385 back into the path of another

State v. Speas

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jun 18, 2025

The Supreme Court of the United States has repeatedly held “erroneous deprivation of the right to counsel of choice, ‘with consequences that are necessarily unquantifiable and indeterminate, unquestionably qualifies as … However, the facts and record clearly show Defendant was attempting to delay trial through dilatory tactics.

Signature Development, LLC v. Sandler Commercial at Union, L.L.C.

207 N.C. App. 576 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Nov 2, 2010

Qualified Personnel, Inc., 294 N.C. 200, 208 , 240 S.E.2d 338, 343 (1978). … Sandler argues further, however, that the terms of the Agreement “clearly show[] that Signature [] controlled the project[.]”

Brewington v. N.C. Dep't Of Pub. Safety

254 N.C. App. 1 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jun 20, 2017

If the employee’s act qualifies as a type of unacceptable conduct, the tribunal proceeds to the third inquiry: whether that misconduct amounted to just cause for the disciplinary action … The Court then concluded that the record as well as the relevant findings “clearly support[ed] the SPC’s conclusion - 36 -  BREWINGTON V. N.C. DEPT.

Naylor Concrete Constr., Co., Inc. v. Mid-Continent Cas. Co.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jan 21, 2014

insured under an “Insured contract” According to the definitional provisions contained in the policy, the term “insured” includes “any person or organization qualifying … Moreover, the BP America Court clearly declined to follow the decisions in United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company v.

In Re a Declaratory Ruling by the North Carolina Commissioner of Insurance Regarding 11 N.C.A.C. 12.0319

134 N.C. App. 22 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jul 6, 1999

App. at 11 , 220 S.E.2d at 412 (“Clearly, G.S. 58-9(1) contains no express grant of authority to set rates and it is not such an implied power as is ‘reasonably necessary for (the Commissioner’s) proper functioning.’ ”). … However, this right is qualified by the power of the legislature to supervise economic relations, providing restrictive safeguards and reasonable regulations.

Burakowski v. Burakowski

233 N.C. App. 601 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · May 6, 2014

Wife shall execute any orders as directed by the Court to effectuate said division, including but not limited to any Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). … ”  -23- App. 795, 798, 487 S.E.2d 157, 159 (1997) (“Reformation is a well-established equitable remedy used to reframe written instruments

State v. Jones

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Nov 2, 2021

¶ 34 The letter at issue here qualifies as a prior consistent statement under those standards. … To show that an error was fundamental, a defendant must establish prejudice—that, after examination of the entire record, the error had a probable impact on the

State v. Morris

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Mar 7, 2023

An unobstructed view of Head’s person, including his face, were clearly depicted in the recordings. … Specifically, Defendant contends the jury compared his DMV photograph to still shots of Head from the drug purchases without the trial court giving a “qualifying instruction[.]”

State v. Lopez

264 N.C. App. 496 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Mar 19, 2019

It is well established that, when no objection is made to jury instructions, this Court’s review is limited to the plain error standard. … In Dye, the SBM order was clearly erroneous, as the trial court’s finding was in direct conflict with precedent of this Court.

State v. King

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Feb 1, 2022

“[D]efendant must show abuse of discretion and prejudice to establish reversible error relating to voir dire.” State v. Bishop, 343 N.C. 518, 535, 472 S.E.2d 842, 850 (1996). … Each of the State’s questions reasonably asked: “Would you be willing to accurately apply the law of self-defense if presented with facts that qualify under the law?”

McAdams v. North Carolina Department of Transportation

215 N.C. App. 429 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Sep 6, 2011

Conner determined that Defendant had, in fact, discriminated against Plaintiff by hiring a less-qualified white candidate for the District Supervisor position instead of offering the position to Plaintiff. … The Commission’s alternative conclusions, which were adopted by Judge Stephens and which we have quoted above, clearly constitute a determination that Plaintiff was subjected to retaliation on the basis of his race.

State v. Velasquez-Cardenas

815 S.E.2d 9 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Apr 17, 2018

established constitutional right to counsel.” … Rule 28(a)’s limited right to review, however, is qualified somewhat by the United States Supreme Court decision in Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which the U.S.

State v. Burnett

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Dec 19, 2023

Standard of Review This Court’s standard of review of a denial of a motion to dismiss is well established: “Upon defendant’s motion for dismissal, the question for the Court is whether there is substantial evidence … The State’s expert’s] opinion from her Projectile Examination was based on sufficient facts and data as taken from the three projectiles maintained from the Casing Examination and fired from the firearm in question; she clearly

In re: B.R.W. & B.G.W.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jul 20, 2021

The trial court established a primary permanent plan of reunification and a secondary plan of guardianship. … Stepfather was “on crutches after being injured in a fall” and “continue[d] to try to qualify for disability payment, which he was also attempting prior to his injury.”

State v. Young

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jun 18, 2024

With the trial court having established the parameters of how Walker could testify, the jury re-entered the courtroom, and Defendant testified to: his Internet searches attempting to find out whether the intruder had been … Clearly, the palm print’s link to Defendant is the strongest evidence that at some point Defendant had possessed the shotgun.

Savino v. The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Hosp. Auth.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Dec 4, 2018

“According to our Supreme Court, ‘[a]ssuming expert testimony is properly qualified and placed before the trier of fact, [N.C. Gen. … Mayer was qualified to testify as an expert to the community standard of care for medical negligence. 2.