Case law

Ge Betz, Inc. v. Conrad

231 N.C. App. 214 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Dec 3, 2013

Ward and Smith is a highly capable and qualified law firm. However, Ward and Smith had no prior working relationship with GE and no prior familiarity with the Employment Agreements at issue. 46. … These duties clearly did not require a prior relationship or intimate knowledge of GE’s employment contracts, because GE paid the attorneys at Ward and Smith to perform almost identical work during the same time period.

Martini v. Companion Property & Casualty Insurance

198 N.C. App. 39 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jul 7, 2009

The policy clearly states that anyone occupying a temporary substitute for a covered auto, the Montero in this case, is insured. Plaintiff was occupying the Montero and is therefore covered by the policy. … If plaintiff presents evidence at trial establishing by the greater weight of the evidence that the Toyota was "out of service" on the day the accident occurred, the Mitsubishi would be a temporary substitute vehicle and

Woollens v. Hamad

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · May 20, 2026

he was clearly able to present evidence at trial to defend against the issue of future interest rate damages. … Initially, for the reasons set forth above, the trial court cannot permit future purported interest expenses where Buyers clearly failed to act reasonably to mitigate their damages.

TOM, LLC v. S. River Land Co., LLC

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Oct 1, 2025

,” the amended closing date was “not expressly essential or clearly defined,” and therefore, “expressly waived.” … The Contract clearly establishes the first $100,000.00 is non- refundable; and the Complaint establishes Defendants refunded the second earnest - 18 -

Deason v. Owens-Illinois, Inc.

192 N.C. App. 275 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Aug 19, 2008

As such, it is not sufficiently reliable to qualify as competent evidence on issues of medical causation. Id. (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). … Snyder withdrew the `should not' phrasing found in the Commission's 10th finding and established that plaintiff `was not' able to work." This is a distinction without a difference.

In Re MG

653 S.E.2d 581 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Dec 18, 2007

Such a holding would additionally impose jurisdictional limitations which the General Assembly clearly never intended when it sought to balance the interests of children with the rights of parents in juvenile actions." … Our courts have, however, held that such conduct is sufficient to establish a violation of N.C. Gen.Stat. § 14-202.1. See, e.g., State v.

The Law Off. of Robert Forquer v. Arcuri

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Dec 17, 2025

The language of the agreements, particularly Section 13, clearly states that co-signers are not responsible for the payment of the debt contained in the Note. … Further, summary judgment is only appropriate where the evidence before the trial court established that Renegar was merely acting as a surety in pledging his interest in Property.

Sharp v. Sharp

116 N.C. App. 513 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Oct 18, 1994

The record shows that defendant was qualified as an expert in “the area of valuation methodology as applied to real estate businesses and partnerships.” … Further, the trial court adopted the referee’s finding that “[w]hen the [defendant left her employment [to open] her own office, there was a drop in her income to the family while she established her practice.

Point Intrepid, LLC v. Farley

215 N.C. App. 82 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Aug 16, 2011

Additionally, “findings of fact to which [the appellant] has not assigned error and argued in his brief are conclusively established on appeal.” Static Control Components, Inc. v. Vogler, 152 N.C. … In its deliberation of the reasonableness of Forward Discovery’s invoice, the trial court was presented with conflicting evidence from qualified experts from both parties.

NAACP v. Gaston Cnty.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Mar 4, 2026

The movant bears “the burden of clearly establishing” that no “triable issue of fact” exists. Caldwell v. Deese, 288 N.C. 375, 378, 218 S.E.2d 379, 381 (1975) (citation and quotation marks omitted). … Even so, Plaintiffs have not established an Open Courts Clause violation.

Honeycutt v. Honeycutt

208 N.C. App. 70 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Nov 16, 2010

"`A substantial right is one which will clearly be lost or irremediably adversely affected if the order is not reviewable before final judgment.'" Musick v. … Qualified Personnel, Inc., 294 N.C. 200, 207 , 240 S.E.2d 338, 343 (1978) (stating interlocutory appeals are disfavored in order to "prevent fragmentary, premature and unnecessary appeals by permitting the trial divisions

State v. Sellars

52 N.C. App. 380 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jun 16, 1981

Robert Buckhout who had qualified, without objection, as “an expert in the field of psychological elements of eyewitness identification.” The record shows that Dr. … In this case, our task is to determine whether the trial judge clearly outlined to the jury its responsibility for finding the facts.

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)).

Barfield v. Matos

215 N.C. App. 24 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Aug 16, 2011

The issuance of such an injunction depends upon the equities of the parties and such balancing is clearly within the province of the trial court. Id. … The trial court found that Matos “wanted Tracts 8 and 9 consolidated to ensure the land would qualify for farm use[.]” The trial court also found that 22.

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

Garlock v. WAKE COUNTY BD. OF EDUC.

712 S.E.2d 158 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Apr 19, 2011

The statute sets out, clearly appears to contemplate a compressed time frame for making decisions on that. … Gen.Stat. § 168A-4(a) (2009) states that "reasonable accommodation duties" do not arise until a qualified person with a disability requesting a reasonable accommodation . . . apprise[s] the employer, employment agency, labor

State v. Thompson

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Aug 20, 2019

THOMPSON Opinion of the Court of who qualifies as an ‘occupant’ for the purposes of the . . . rule.” Wilson, 371 N.C. at 925, 821 S.E.2d at 815. … Our precedents clearly allow the party seeking to uphold the trial court’s presumed-to-be- correct and “ultimate ruling” to, in fact, choose and run any horse to race on appeal to sustain

McMillan v. McMillan

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jun 18, 2025

The trial court must clearly abuse its “broad discretion in cases involving child custody” to merit disturbance on appeal, id. (quoting Pulliam v. … See generally N.C.G.S. §§ 115C-563 to -565.1 (establishing statutory homeschooling requirements).

State v. Hartley

212 N.C. App. 1 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · May 17, 2011

Ed. 2d 314, 327-28 (2009), the Supreme Court determined that forensic analyses, including autopsy examinations, qualify as “testimonial” statements, and forensic analysts are “witnesses” to which the Confrontation Clause … Moreover, Lantz’s opinion testimony regarding the impact of the various wounds and the time it would have taken for [the victim] to lose consciousness was clearly based, not on the report at all, but on his own independent

Keith v. Health-Pro Home Care Servs.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Dec 15, 2020

This error was clearly prejudicial and would normally require a new trial. … In 2012, they contracted with Defendant Health-Pro to employ qualified people to provide care to them in their home.