Case law

Quets v. Needham

198 N.C. App. 241 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jul 21, 2009

Since Florida law clearly 2 permits parties to enter into enforceable OAAs, [plaintiff] pled valid claims for the enforcement of the OAA, and her complaint should not have been dismissed. (Emphasis and footnote added.) … It is thoroughly established as a broad general rule that foreign law or rights based thereon will not be given effect or enforced if opposed to the settled public policy of the forum.”

Holleman v. Aiken

193 N.C. App. 484 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Nov 4, 2008

Although someone cannot preface an otherwise defamatory statement with ‘in my opinion’ and claim immunity from liability, a pure expression of opinion is protected because it fails to assert actual fact. … Injunctions are denied in particular cases when the plaintiff fails to establish any underlying right. . . .

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

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. 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?”

State v. Tripp

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Dec 31, 2020

Since the defendant was seized during the execution of a search warrant and he “was seized within the immediate vicinity of the premises being searched[,]” the Court held he clearly met the “when” and “where” prongs of … In addition, Defendant was clearly close enough to the search and the officers to pose an immediate threat if he had a gun.

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

North Carolina Industrial Capital, LLC v. Clayton

185 N.C. App. 356 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Aug 21, 2007

A plain reading of this statute establishes that “the summary ejectment statute specifically allows a lessor to bring an action to regain possession of the premises separate from an action for damages[.]” … “Admission of evidence is ‘addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court and may be disturbed on appeal only where an abuse of such discretion is clearly shown.’ ” Gibbs v. Mayo, 162 N.C.

State v. Steele

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Apr 20, 2021

STEELE 2021-NCCOA-148 Opinion of the Court whether this encounter qualified as a traffic stop at all (as opposed to a voluntary … Moreover, Officer Plummer was uniformed, presumably carrying a weapon, and was driving in his clearly-marked patrol vehicle. See State v. Knudsen, 229 N.C.

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.’

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.’

In the Matter of JB

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.

State v. Murray

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Sep 17, 2025

MURRAY Opinion of the Court “A request for a special instruction which deviates from the pattern jury instruction qualifies as a special instruction.” Young, 294 N.C. … “It is a well-established principle in this jurisdiction that in reviewing jury instructions for error, they must be considered and reviewed in their entirety.” Murrow v.

State of N.C. v. Anson Cnty.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Aug 6, 2024

Quorum Even if the 5 December meeting had qualified as an emergency meeting, the Board lacked the quorum necessary to lawfully appoint Plaintiff to Sheriff. … The 5 December meeting minutes clearly show that Commissioners Woodburn, Sims, and Bricken participated in the 5 December meeting by conference call, thus rendering it a “remote meeting” because three of the participants

Town of Beech Mountain v. Genesis Wildlife Sanctuary

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · May 10, 2016

However, even apart from Zinermon, we are required to follow the precedents established in Edward Valves and Swan Beach Corolla. … State, 289 N.C. 303, 322, 222 S.E.2d 412, 425 (1976) (holding that government entity waives immunity from breach of contract claims when it enters into a contract). See also Bicycle Transit Authority v.

Lawrence v. Lawrence

100 N.C. App. 1 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Aug 7, 1990

The trial court's finding that plaintiff received this property as a tenant in common is clearly erroneous. … Along with this evidence, the trial court relied on findings which clearly were not appropriate, and this issue must be remanded to the trial court for a new determination.

N.C. State Bd. of Educ. v. State

255 N.C. App. 514 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Sep 19, 2017

In Guthrie, the plaintiff, a public school teacher, challenged a Board regulation requiring teachers to complete certain courses to qualify to renew their teaching certificates. Id. at 709, 185 S.E.2d at 198. … This intention is clearly set forth in the plain language of the Constitution in Article IX.

Town of Beech Mountain v. Genesis Wildlife Sanctuary, Inc.

247 N.C. App. 444 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · May 10, 2016

However, even apart from Zinermon, we are required to follow the precedents established in Edward Valves and Swan Beach Corolla. … State, 289 N.C. 303, 322, 222 S.E.2d 412, 425 (1976) (holding that government entity waives immunity from breach of contract claims when it enters into a contract). See also Bicycle Transit Authority v.

State v. Taylor

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Mar 17, 2020

This principle is well established in North Carolina. … However, even on its face this language is not clearly a threat, much less a “true threat.”

State v. Steele

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Apr 20, 2021

STEELE 2021-NCCOA-148 Opinion of the Court whether this encounter qualified as a traffic stop at all (as opposed to a voluntary … Moreover, Officer Plummer was uniformed, presumably carrying a weapon, and was driving in his clearly-marked patrol vehicle. See State v. Knudsen, 229 N.C.