Case law

Fagundes v. Ammons Dev. Grp., Inc.

261 N.C. App. 138 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Sep 4, 2018

Even assuming arguendo that the defense of assumption of risk can apply to strict liability claims for blasting, we are not persuaded that Plaintiff’s complaint clearly shows Plaintiff had actual or constructive knowledge … complaint, where “plaintiff adequately alleged the essential elements of a claim for defamation per se,” and “plaintiff’s complaint on its face [did not] disclose[] in defendant’s favor the affirmative defense of absolute or qualified

McAdoo v. University of North Carolina

225 N.C. App. 50 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jan 15, 2013

The NCAA Committee on Student-Athlete Reinstatement maintains a clearly-outlined appeal procedure. … In fact, the ASA, an express contract between McAdoo and UNC, clearly established that the NCAA’s requirements are distinct from UNC’s requirements.

Wetherington v. NC Dep't of Pub. Safety

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Feb 18, 2020

The only factor he clearly addressed was Petitioner’s work history, which would favor discipline short of dismissal. … However, Respondent has established that some disciplinary action short of dismissal should be imposed.

State v. Crompton

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Mar 17, 2020

violations of Section 15A-1343(b)(3) which together amount to the defendant “willfully avoiding supervision” or “willfully making the defendant's whereabouts unknown to the supervising probation officer” also fail to qualify … On appeal, our Court determined that the defendant’s actions “while clearly a violation of [Section] 15A-1343(b)(3), . . . do not rise to ‘absconding supervision’ in violation of [Section] 15A-1343(b)(3a).”

State v. Clonts

254 N.C. App. 95 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jun 20, 2017

In the present case, Whisman's deposition testimony clearly qualifies as "testimonial" for Confrontation Clause purposes. … We assume these items are included as part of Exhibit C, though they are not clearly marked as such.

Chavez v. Carmichael

262 N.C. App. 196 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Nov 6, 2018

: [T]he Attorney General may enter into a written agreement with a State, or any political subdivision of a State, *207 pursuant to which an officer ... of the State ..., who is determined by the Attorney General to be qualified … See Martin , 163 F.3d at 1214-15 ; Torres , 862 F.2d at 1030 ; Sosa-Carabantes , 561 F.3d at 257 ; El Cenizo , 890 F.3d at 180 . *216 Petitioners' habeas petitions clearly disclosed Petitioners were being detained under express

State v. Brichikov

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jan 18, 2022

Specifically, the State argues it “has established malice in the instant case.” (Emphasis added). … Specifically, the State argues it “has established malice in the instant case.” (Emphasis added).

Jackson v. Home Depot U.S.A.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Apr 6, 2021

And, even then, not all beneficiaries qualify: incidental beneficiaries are not entitled to third-party beneficiary status.” … .; accord Jennings, 802 N.W.2d at 922 (“The terms of the contract must clearly express intent to benefit that party or an identifiable class of which the party is a member.” (citation omitted)).

Cello v. Secrest

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Apr 1, 2026

This evidence raises the possibility that Defendants knew that they had a system that qualified as a straight pipe sewage disposal system as defined on the disclosure statement. … Clearly, Plaintiffs did not fail to investigate.

In re: M.G.B., T.J.B.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · May 7, 2024

In an email to DSS, this DBT provider explained that she was not qualified to conduct a “clinical forensic evaluation,” which would involve examining past assessments and evaluating the subject over time. … Instead, she conducted a “clinical mental health assessment,” which did not involve a review of outside documents and was meant to establish “a picture of the client as they present at the time of the assessment.”

Smith v. Rodgers

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.

State v. Ambriz

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Nov 1, 2022

“The existence of a conspiracy may be established by direct or circumstantial evidence, although it is generally established by a number of indefinite acts, each … He argues such an approach “prevents the absurd result of a person being retried to mistrial every eleven months, never reaching a final verdict, and never qualifying for a presumptive speedy trial violation

State v. McDowell

215 N.C. App. 184 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Sep 6, 2011

An examination of the damaged kitchen floor area using amido black established that blood had seeped beneath the surface of the floor and into the sub-floor. … Although this evidence was clearly relevant to the sincerity of Defendant’s belief that his life was in danger, it does not have any bearing on his ability to premeditate, deliberate, or form a intent to kill.

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

260 N.C. App. 40 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jun 19, 2018

. § 126-34.01 establishes a grievance procedure that employees are generally required to follow in situations involving a discharge, suspension, or demotion. … Even after receiving this letter that clearly put DPS on notice of Hunt’s disagreement with the notion that he had resigned, DPS still did not inform him of his appeal rights.

State v. Phillips

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Dec 3, 2019

Melinda Wilson, a forensic biologist with the North Carolina State Crime Lab, qualified as an expert witness in the area of DNA analysis, and testified at trial. … Wilson to break with the State Lab’s policy and established scientific procedures and testify to the alleles she could see in the minor contributor’s graph, the State asked Dr.

Shepard v. Catawba Coll.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Feb 18, 2020

Harlowe opined “that the bleachers in Newman Park have never been inspected by a qualified person.” … This case is different from Gibson and Hedgepeth because plaintiff did clearly identify the place she was sitting in the bleachers, “along the first base side three rows down from the press box[,]” that she stood, stepped

In re: NC Rate Bureau

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Aug 2, 2016

RATE BUREAU Opinion of the Court insurance for establishment of rates, loss costs, and base premiums. … ’ of loss experience of all the carriers, which the establishment of the Bureau was intended to create.”

State v. Teel

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Nov 19, 2024

While error is clearly invited when a defendant requests the instruction at issue, see State v. … “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 jury’s finding that the defendant was guilty.”

In re J.B.

172 N.C. App. 1 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Aug 2, 2005

Respondent contends that neither therapist was a qualified expert witness, and that their diagnoses were based upon inadmissible evidence. … In the instant case, the trial court clearly indicated that it had determined that sufficient grounds exist to terminate respondent's parental rights pursuant to each of the statutory grounds alleged in the petition.

NC State Conf. Of The Nat'l Ass'n For The Advancement Of Colored People v. Moore

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Sep 15, 2020

The offices they purportedly held (state Representatives and Senators) are clearly established under our state constitution. All were elected and received their commissions. … It cannot be said that this act is plainly and clearly unconstitutional. The doubt, if any, must be resolved in favor of the General Assembly.’