Case law

Frazier v. North Carolina Cent. University, ex rel. University of North Carolina

244 N.C. App. 37 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Nov 17, 2015

Such is clearly not the case here. … of waiver of sovereign immunity."

Free Spirit Aviation, Inc. v. Rutherford Airport Authority

206 N.C. App. 192 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Aug 3, 2010

Defendants also point to other testimony by Ronan that he was upset about the selection of Leading Edge because its owner was the least qualified of the four FBO bidders. … and that plaintiffs thus could not overcome their defense of public official immunity. 2 Although this Court in Free Spirit I addressed only the issue of public official immunity, the Court, in the process, concluded — as

Crosmun v. Trustees Of Fayetteville Technical Cmty. Coll.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Aug 6, 2019

After careful review, we hold that the trial court abused its discretion by compelling 5 We recognize that the work-product doctrine is “not a privilege, but a ‘qualified immunity.’ ” Evans v. United Serv. … both traditional privileges, such as attorney-client privilege, and the qualified work-product immunity

White v. Cochran

216 N.C. App. 125 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Oct 4, 2011

On the other hand, a motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Rule 12(c) should only be granted when the movant clearly establishes that no material issue of fact remains to be resolved and that the movant is entitled … The issue of sovereign immunity is not before this Court. Defendant’s initial answer and amended answer did not assert the defense of sovereign immunity.

Plemmons Ex Rel. Teeter v. City of Gastonia

62 N.C. App. 470 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jun 7, 1983

We agree with the Board that the statute renders it immune from liability in this instance. … The Legislature clearly intended to do more than codify the common law rule. See, e.g., City of Raleigh v.

Hochheiser v. NORTH CAROLINA DEPT. OF TRANSP.

348 S.E.2d 140 · 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.

State v. Jenkins

74 N.C. App. 295 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Apr 16, 1985

Assuming arguendo that the chain of custody was not adequately established, we think the admission of the plant was harmless error. … One is qualified as an expert if, through study or experience, he is better qualified than the jury to form an opinion on the particular subject. Id.

Velez v. Dick Keffer Pontiac GMC Truck, Inc.

144 N.C. App. 589 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jul 3, 2001

immunity.” … Materials that are prepared in the ordinary course of business, however, are not protected by the work product immunity. Willis, 291 N.C. at 35 , 229 S.E.2d at 201 .

Leandro v. State

122 N.C. App. 1 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Mar 19, 1996

that each and every school in the same or other districts throughout the State shall be of the same fixed grade, regardless of the age or attainments of the pupils, but the term has reference to and qualifies the word “system … Our Constitution clearly does not contemplate such absolute uniformity across the State. Id. at 289 , 357 S.E.2d at 436 .

Jackson v. Housing Authority of High Point

73 N.C. App. 363 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Mar 5, 1985

Defendant clearly had a duty to maintain the flue of the gas heater in Mrs. … But, of course, municipal immunity is rooted in the common law, Comment, Local Government Sovereign Immunity: The Need for Reform, 18 Wake Forest L.

Scott v. North Carolina Department of Crime Control & Public Safety

222 N.C. App. 125 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Aug 7, 2012

court’s resolution of the sovereign immunity issue as well. . … However, given our conclusion that the relevant statutory provisions applicable to this case clearly establish that a litigant’s failure to pay the required filing fee on or before the date specified for the filing of the

State v. Sherrod

191 N.C. App. 776 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Aug 5, 2008

Regarding criminal statutes in particular, our Supreme Court has held that the purpose of a statute will not: be extended by implication so as to embrace cases not clearly within its meaning. … Therefore, we conclude that firearm ammunition, absent a means to discharge it, does not qualify as a “weapon.”

Braden v. Lowe

223 N.C. App. 213 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Nov 6, 2012

App. 372, 376 , 573 S.E.2d 600, 603 (2002) (citations omitted) (“[A] plaintiffs compliance with Rule 9(j) requirements clearly presents a question of law to be decided by a court, not a jury. … to Rule 9(j), if discovery subsequently establishes that the statement is not supported by the facts, then dismissal is likewise appropriate.’ ” Morris v.

Strickland v. Hedrick

194 N.C. App. 1 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Dec 2, 2008

Defendants asserted that the claims were barred by governmental immunity. … Defendants assert the affirmative defense of governmental immunity.

Brown v. Motor Inns of Carolina, Inc.

47 N.C. App. 115 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jun 3, 1980

The Court rejected this argument, stating: Carried to its logical extreme, this would confer immunity from liability upon an employer who inflicts a negligent injury on an employee while the latter is not engaged in any activity … They must be construed within the framework of the Act, and as qualified by its subject and purposes. 223 N.C. at 216 , 25 S.E. 2d at 839 .

Morris Communications Corp. v. City of Bessemer City Zoning Board of Adjustment

202 N.C. App. 631 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Mar 2, 2010

The standard of review included in the superior court’s order is clearly consistent with the standard of review for interpretation of a local zoning ordinance as established by this Court. … An invalid permit does not qualify for statutory rights according to the express language of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 160A-385(b)(i). This result is also supported by previous holdings of this Court.

Ford v. McCain

192 N.C. App. 667 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Sep 16, 2008

Nonetheless, it is also now well established that even when a complaint facially complies with Rule 9(j) by including a statement pursuant to Rule 9Q), if discovery subsequently establishes that the statement is not supported … The Court observed further: Although Rule 9(j) clearly requires a complainant of a medical malpractice action to attach to the complaint specific verifications regarding an expert witness, the rule does not expressly preclude

Grodensky v. McLendon

812 S.E.2d 914 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · May 1, 2018

Where plaintiff offered no qualified expert testimony to establish medical causation, he failed to meet his burden of establishing that a doctor's alleged breach of duty caused plaintiff's harm. … In the absence of qualified expert testimony establishing causation, we hold that the trial court did not err in holding that plaintiff had failed to show causation, and granting a directed verdict in favor of Dr.

Winstead v. Derreberry

73 N.C. App. 35 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Feb 19, 1985

Second, such liberality should not, however, extend beyond the clearly expressed language of those provisions, and our courts may not enlarge the ordinary meaning of the terms used by the legislature or engage in any method … These facts are sufficient to establish “substantial” dependency for the purpose of G.S. § 97-2(12), qualifying the stepchildren as a “child” dependent on deceased under G.S. § 97-39 and, therefore, entitled to a share of

Alston v. Hueske

244 N.C. App. 546 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jan 5, 2016

The Administrator requested leave to amend the pleadings in order to clearly comply with Rule 9(j), but the trial court denied the Administrator’s request under -3- … willing to testify that the medical care did not comply with the applicable standard of care, and the motion is filed with the complaint; or (3) The pleading alleges facts establishing