Case law

Clark v. Clark

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Dec 7, 2021

The liability clearly does not extend to mere insults,  CLARK V. … ¶ 55 Plaintiff testified a third party sent Plaintiff the Facebook advertisement, establishing that the ad was indeed published.

Clark v. Clark

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Dec 7, 2021

Ellington’s Testimony ¶ 24 Defendant Barrett contends the trial court erred “by admitting evidence and testimony from an expert witness who was not qualified as such.” We disagree. 1. … The liability clearly does not extend to mere insults, indignities, threats, annoyances, petty oppressions, or other trivialities.

State v. Barbour

809 S.E.2d 922 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Feb 20, 2018

Drake, Rachel clearly distinguished between past events involving defendant and those involving Mr. Hauber. Ms. Drake diagnosed Rachel as suffering from anxiety and PTSD. Ms. … She clearly has limitations, mental illnesses.... She has some serious mental health diagnoses. Bipolar, pretty serious.... Oppositional defiant disorder. Even Ms.

In Re Mashburn

162 N.C. App. 386 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Feb 3, 2004

Cynthia Brown to provide unreliable and improper expert opinion testimony to establish the credibility of the minor child. We disagree. Defendant relies upon our Supreme Court's opinion in State v. … The trial court does not clearly state what evidence or facts it relied on to adjudicate whether Mrs. Mashburn abused or neglected her children. The trial court erred by using evidence of Mr.

Castro v. Thomas

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Oct 6, 2015

Pursuant to Rule 702(i) of the Rules of Evidence, “[a] witness qualified as an expert in accident reconstruction who has performed a reconstruction of a crash, or has reviewed the report of investigation, with proper foundation … so clearly that no other reasonable inference or conclusion may be drawn therefrom.

Tester v. Delia

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Oct 21, 2014

Tester is clearly unable to undertake gainful employment." In addition, one of petitioner's other doctors, Dr. … Generally, more weight will be given to a treating physician who has established a relationship with the patient over a long period of time. Id.

Roybal v. Raulli

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Feb 4, 2026

Lightner, which was decided under the SSCRA, not the SCRA, and under the SSCRA granting a stay was clearly in the discretion of the trial court. See id.; see also Boone, 319 U.S. … If he failed to appear or to pay, he would be arrested and held until he purged contempt by paying the stated amount as established in December 2022.

Tillman v. Commercial Credit Loans, Inc.

177 N.C. App. 568 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jun 6, 2006

MBNA America Bank, 790 A.2d 1249, 1261 (Del.Super.Ct.2001) (finding that, because "the surrender of [the] class action right was clearly articulated in the arbitration amendment[,] the Court finds nothing unconscionable about … Plaintiffs failed to establish the costs of arbitration are "prohibitive." The arbitration agreements are not unenforceable because they preclude class actions.

State v. Reid

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Oct 20, 2020

Under the trial court’s interpretation of newly discovered evidence, virtually any information not originally introduced at trial could qualify as newly discovered evidence, even though it could have been discovered through … Rule 803 of the North Carolina Rules of Evidence establishes exceptions to the general exclusion of hearsay evidence. See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 803 (2019).

Bossian v. Bossian

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jul 5, 2022

Notwithstanding the existence of such an agreement, this court has long established, “[i]ndividuals may not modify a court order for child support through extrajudicial written or oral agreements.” … Based on the evidence in the record, these medical appointments and procedures were reasonable, medically necessary, and qualify as medical expenses Defendant is obligated to pay.

BDM Invs. v. Lenhil, Inc.

264 N.C. App. 282 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Mar 19, 2019

Martin Evans” as the “qualifying broker employed with, and acting for, the Exit Realty defendants[.]” Listed as defendants in the case, however, are Martin J. … Plaintiff’s allegations support, instead, that Hollingsworth was “engaged in some private matter of his own,” and his actions were clearly “outside the legitimate scope of his employment.”

State v. Torres-Robles

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jun 3, 2014

Rule 702 allows expert witnesses to testify in the form of an opinion when a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, bases … To establish plain error, defendant must show that the erroneous instruction was a fundamental error that had a probable impact on the jury verdict.

State v. Gaspar

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · May 20, 2014

Since “[o]ur case law has long held that a witness may not vouch for the credibility of a victim,” id., we concluded that “[the investigator’s] testimony was clearly improper, … Anderson was “not formally qualified” as an expert, and that her testimony constituted inadmissible lay opinion testimony. We disagree.

State v. Paige

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Sep 15, 2015

The Pontiac Vibe was clearly under his control as he had previously driven the same vehicle — alone — to the 12 September meeting with Detective Ridings. … This evidence easily qualifies as “other incriminating circumstances” sufficient to establish constructive possession despite the fact that Defendant was not alone in the vehicle, and, as a result, Defendant cannot show

Bossian v. Bossian

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jul 5, 2022

Notwithstanding the existence of such an agreement, this court has long established, “[i]ndividuals may not modify a court order for child support through extrajudicial written or oral agreements.” … Based on the evidence in the record, these medical appointments and procedures were reasonable, medically necessary, and qualify as medical expenses Defendant is obligated to pay.

State v. Lopez

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Dec 1, 2020

We find no reason to establish a different standard for sexual offense.” (citation omitted)). Defendant compares his case to two others where the evidence of penetration was found to be insufficient. … The function of all briefs required or permitted by these rules is to define clearly the issues presented to the 3 To be eligible for a U-Visa, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(U) requires, among other things

Cook v. Turlington

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Sep 1, 2015

As plaintiff correctly points out, a green light “ ‘is not a command to go, but a qualified permission to proceed lawfully and carefully in the direction indicated. … These facts, taken as true, do not establish that defendant was not negligent.

The Ascot Corp., LLC v. I&R Waterproofing

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Nov 15, 2022

As I&R did not allege that it is a “consumer purchaser” of a qualifying residence or unit, I&R did not allege that the warranty extends to I&R. … Federal Rule 14 provided a “direct and plain statement of the substantive test for impleading,” prescribed “clearly and concisely the procedure for impleading where the right exists,” and concluded with a

Gien v. Gien

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Sep 15, 2015

it does not logically follow that such hearsay testimony is automatically rendered competent evidence of anything it might be offered to prove, or that a party’s failure to object to its admissibility at trial somehow immunizes … Nevertheless, Andre’s deposition testimony clearly indicates that although he did not enter into any formal written agreement with Fleishman until 2013, the two men had reached an agreement “five or six years ago” regarding

The Ascot Corp., LLC v. I&R Waterproofing

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Nov 15, 2022

As I&R did not allege that it is a “consumer purchaser” of a qualifying residence or unit, I&R did not allege that the warranty extends to I&R. … Federal Rule 14 provided a “direct and plain statement of the substantive test for impleading,” prescribed “clearly and concisely the procedure for impleading where the right exists,” and concluded with a