Case law

Long v. Fowler

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Mar 3, 2020

of immunity. … See Mullis, 347 N.C. at 552, 495 S.E.2d at 724 (“[P]leadings should . . . clearly state[] the capacity in which [defendants are] being sued.”).

First American Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Satterfield

87 N.C. App. 160 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Sep 15, 1987

Qualified Personnel, Inc., 294 N.C. 200, 208 , 240 S.E. 2d 338, 343 (1978). … Qualified Personnel, Inc., supra.

Grad v. Kaasa

68 N.C. App. 128 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · May 1, 1984

It would render an official's immunity meaningless if that protection could be overcome by a showing of mere mistake, since immunity would then be available only in cases when no mistake had been made, and obviously immunity … The majority opinion holds that a forecast of the evidence clearly shows that Dr.

Clontz v. St. Mark's Evangelical Lutheran Church

157 N.C. App. 325 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Apr 15, 2003

Mark’s and Allen Sloop waived immunity from civil liability afforded to volunteers. … No immunity necessarily defeating the claim has been proffered. The immunity conferred by N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-539.10 depends on the absence of liability insurance carried by defendants.

Dunn v. State of North Carolina

179 N.C. App. 753 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Oct 17, 2006

Such a result would clearly elevate form over substance. This is especially untenable . . . where the matter is of constitutional import and where, in practical consequence, the purpose of the statute was realized. … Accordingly, once the named Plaintiffs established standing to proceed on the individual claims, they were entitled, under Rule 23, to represent not only other individuals, but also non-individual taxpayers, specifically,

Matter of Bell

107 N.C. App. 566 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Oct 6, 1992

Tucker contends that the lower court erred in denying her motion to dismiss on the basis that DSS did not establish neglect by clear and convincing evidence. … The finding of neglect is clearly *571 supported by the evidence, and it is obvious that the day care program operated by DSS would be beneficial to these children.

State v. Brockett

185 N.C. App. 18 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Aug 7, 2007

While Defendant does not clearly argue that the admission of this evidence violated Rule 403 of the North Carolina Evidence Code, we believe it is imperative to address this issue. … been qualified as an expert in open court).

Hochheiser v. North CaroLina Department of Transportation

82 N.C. App. 712 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Sep 16, 1986

By enacting G.S. 143-291, the Tort Claims Act, the legislature waived the State’s sovereign immunity for claims arising “as a result of the negligence of any officer, employee, involuntary servant or agent of the State while … had been developed which established a methodology for dealing with roadside hazards.

Patterson v. CITY OF GASTONIA

220 N.C. App. 233 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · May 1, 2012

Therefore, in order for plaintiffs to proceed under the state constitution, they must establish that they lacked an adequate alternative state remedy. … immunity.”

Allred v. Capital Area Soccer League, Inc.

194 N.C. App. 280 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Dec 16, 2008

The defendants’ duty to warn is qualified to the extent that the danger is known or so obvious that the plaintiff should have been aware of it. … First, this allegation was specifically qualified and based upon defendants’ “particular knowledge of the sport of soccer.”

McCallum v. North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service of N.C. Carolina State University

142 N.C. App. 48 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Feb 6, 2001

Plaintiff cannot establish a property right through the State Personnel Act. … Thus, the appointment letter cannot establish a property right for plaintiff.

Memorial Hospital of Alamance County, Inc. v. Brown

50 N.C. App. 526 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Feb 3, 1981

Brown, and the plaintiff’s evidence further fails to establish the reasonableness and necessity of identifiable medical services incurred by the defendant, Virginia R. … Blake’s qualifications and experience clearly qualified him to give such opinion testimony. Maloney v. Hospital Systems, supra.

Matter of Estate of Morris

123 N.C. App. 264 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jul 16, 1996

. §§ 49-1 through 49-9 or in a civil action to establish paternity under N.C. Gen. … “G.S. 29-19(c) clearly and unambiguously provides that a putative father and his kindred are only entitled to inherit from an illegitimate child if paternity has been established by one of the methods prescribed in G.S. 29

North Carolina State Bar v. Brewer

183 N.C. App. 229 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · May 15, 2007

The first sentence of the rule establishes six years as the presumptive time limitation. … sufficiently determined the State Bar’s allegations under Rule 3.1 and Rule 8.4(d), in that both alleged violations involved conduct which was alleged to have occurred after Hoffman’s 1996 trial, conduct which the Commission clearly

Clary v. Alexander County Board of Education

19 N.C. App. 637 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Dec 4, 1973

We hold that Roger Dale Clary failed to exercise ordinary and reasonable care for his own safety’ under the known circumstances then existing and was clearly negligent. … Since plaintiffs’ own evidence established his contributory negligence, the directed verdict for the defendant was entirely proper. Lowe v. Futrell, 271 N.C. 550 , 157 S.E. 2d 92 ; Turpin v. Gallimore, 8 N. C.

Andrews v. Peters

75 N.C. App. 252 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jun 18, 1985

The co-employee immunity read into the Act by the North Carolina case law does not extend to in *254 tentional acts. Id. We refer to the earlier opinion for a complete analysis. … The legislative enactment of Rule 52(a)(2) clearly envisions greater specificity upon the request of a party.

Cameron v. New Hanover Memorial Hospital, Inc.

58 N.C. App. 414 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Aug 3, 1982

The rationale of the common law qualified privilege therefore applies. … Clearly, as we have noted, plaintiffs’ competency has been adequately reviewed.

Knott v. Knott

52 N.C. App. 543 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jun 16, 1981

Clearly, defendant was entitled to that which she sought in her complaint. … Finding *549 of Fact (7) establishes plaintiffs expenses as $1,628.66 per month, $591.66 of which is attributable to herself, thus implicitly establishing the children’s expenses at $1,037 per month.

Deminski v. The State Bd. Of Educ.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jan 7, 2020

immunity bar.”). … Governmental Immunity Under the doctrine of governmental immunity, county boards of education are often shielded “entirely from having to answer for [their] conduct at all in a civil suit for damages.”

Dobson v. Harris

134 N.C. App. 573 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Aug 17, 1999

Defendants’ answer also raised several defenses, including the qualified privilege established by N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7A-550 (1995, repealed 1 July 1999). … That statute provides both civil and criminal immunity to defendants who in good faith report suspected child abuse; it also establishes a rebuttable presumption that reports are made in good faith. Id.