Case law

Snuggs v. STANLY CTY. DEPT. OF PUBLIC HEALTH

303 S.E.2d 646 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jul 5, 1983

It is well established that State courts have concurrent general subject matter jurisdiction to hear Section 1983 claims. In Martinez v. … Presnell , a remarkably analogous case, clearly holds to the long-established North Carolina rule that "where the legislature has provided by statute an effective administrative remedy, that remedy is exclusive and its relief

Gordon v. North Carolina Department of Correction

173 N.C. App. 22 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Sep 6, 2005

Braniff Airways, Inc., 664 F.2d 1282, 1284 (5th Cir. 1982) (prima facie case established if: “(1) a claimant is a member of a minority group, (2) he was qualified for the position, (3) he was discharged, and (4) the employer … Ability to express ideas clearly and concisely, both orally and in writing. Ability to think clearly and act quickly and effectively during emergencies.

State v. Bunton

27 N.C. App. 704 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Dec 17, 1975

Subsection (d) of G.S. 20-139.1 provides that a person who has been given a breathalyzer test “may have a physician, or a qualified technician, chemist, registered nurse, or other qualified person of his own choosing administer … Moreover, Section 1 of the statute, which creates a new offense, is clearly prospective only.

Naegele Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. Harrelson

112 N.C. App. 98 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Sep 21, 1993

DOT claims it is “clearly the intent of the JCA and the OACA to keep outdoor advertisers from claiming such junkyards as activities for qualifying unzoned areas as commercial or industrial when [DOT] is in the process of … Naegele stresses that its permit applications must be viewed at the time they were submitted, when the junkyard was clearly visible from the road.

In re Robertson

7 N.C. App. 186 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Feb 4, 1970

Such a contract, if made, was clearly void. … The fact that the office of justice of the peace no longer exists in Forsyth County furnishes respondent no immunity from public review of his official actions while he held that office.

In re Appeal of Valley Proteins, Inc.

128 N.C. App. 151 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Dec 16, 1997

We discern the purpose of G.S. § 105-282.1 to be to establish a uniform method of informing a county of a property owner’s intent to claim a tax exemption. … The County was clearly aware of taxpayer’s intent and received all of the relevant information it needed.

Deminski v. State

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.”

Matter of Hernandez

46 N.C. App. 265 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Apr 15, 1980

It is not intended to be used indiscriminately and clearly defines the limited time and circumstances for such use. … Such facts must be sufficient to establish to the affiant’s satisfaction that the patient is imminently dangerous to himself or others.

Hwang v. Cairns

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Dec 17, 2025

Plaintiff contends that “there is only clear evidence of actual malice by [Defendant], which defeats the qualified immunity.” … “[O]n remand, the trial court must consider the forecast of evidence to determine whether qualified immunity is applicable and whether there is a triable issue of fact for a jury on slander per se.”

Rexham Corporation v. Town of Pineville

26 N.C. App. 349 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jul 2, 1975

Since the Town Council clearly had the statutory authority to amend its ordinance upon remand without increasing the area to be annexed, it is of no legal significance here whether Judge Ervin misinterpreted the order of … More importantly, however, we note that petitioner in the case at bar is a corporation and therefore is not a member of the class of qualified resident voters allegedly discriminated against by the statute.

Gilreath v. Cumberland Cnty. Bd. of Educ.

798 S.E.2d 438 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Apr 18, 2017

"[N]on-outsiders often enjoy qualified immunity from liability for inducing their corporation or other entity to breach its contract with an employee." Lenzer v. Flaherty , 106 N.C. … It is well established that "[t]o assert a direct constitutional claim ... a plaintiff must allege that no adequate state remedy exists to provide relief for the injury."

Creighton v. Lazell-Frankel

178 N.C. App. 227 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jun 20, 2006

that the award would be clearly inappropriate. … See G.S. § 50A-102 (3) (defining "child custody determination"); mother qualified as a person who sought enforcement of a child custody determination pursuant to G.S. § 50A-301(1); and that he qualified as "a person against

North Carolina Board of Examiners for Speech & Language Pathologists & Audiologists v. North Carolina State Board of Education

122 N.C. App. 15 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Mar 19, 1996

Inexplicably, Section .1529 is used as authority for this proposition by plaintiffs, without reference to anything clearly denoting its legal force or value. … Based on the foregoing, it is inescapable that the intent of the legislature was to ensure, in every instance, that only qualified persons engage in the practice of speech pathology: A qualified speech pathologist is a person

State v. Moore

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jul 16, 2025

North Carolina courts have long held that evidence of a defendant’s prior traffic violations while not admissible to prove character can be relevant to establish the malice element of second-degree murder. State v. … [T]he State, in the present case, sought to establish the malice element of second-degree murder by showing that defendant committed an act evidencing a total disregard for human

State v. Locklear

180 N.C. App. 115 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Nov 7, 2006

Establishing that Sapp’s testimony was relevant is but a threshold question. … Specifically, defendant assigns error to the flight instruction, the interested witness instruction, the accomplice testimony instruction, the immunity or quasi-immunity instruction, and the intent instruction.

In Re Hughes, by and Through Ingram

253 N.C. App. 699 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jun 6, 2017

The $10 million appropriated to cover compensation for the victims would clearly not result in compensation approaching $50,000.00 if even 1,500 victims were verified as claimants according to the method of payment established … This option was clearly considered and rejected by the General Assembly.

Udzinski v. Lovin

159 N.C. App. 272 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Aug 5, 2003

When the statue of repose has run, the immunity is absolute. *276 N.C. Gen. Stat. § l-15(c), establishes a four-year statute of repose and a three-year statute of limitations. McGahren v. Saenger, 118 N.C. … This order clearly pertained only to the medical malpractice claim, and not a wrongful death claim. Because the medical malpractice claim was not time-barred at the time of Mrs.

Crocker v. Griffin

204 N.C. App. 210 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · May 18, 2010

"`The liability clearly does not extend to mere insults, indignities, [and] threats[.]'" Wagoner v. Elkin City Schools' Bd. of Education, 113 N.C. App. 579, 586 , 440 S.E.2d 119, 123 (1994) (citations omitted). … Public Official Immunity Plaintiffs argue the trial court erred by dismissing plaintiffs' claim for NIED against Griffin in her individual capacity under the public official immunity doctrine. We disagree.

State v. Proctor

62 N.C. App. 233 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · May 17, 1983

Any officer pursuing an offender outside the corporate limits or extraterritorial jurisdiction of the city shall be entitled to all of the privileges, immunities, and benefits to which he would be entitled if acting within … While Officer Boyles himself was not qualified as an expert witness for purposes of identifying the “controlled” nature of the substance purchased, the State later tendered the testimony of an expert forensic chemist, Ralph

Vaughan v. Mashburn

251 N.C. App. 494 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Dec 30, 2016

Like Vaughan, alerted to this defect by the defendant’s answer and motion to dismiss after the expiration of the statute of limitations, the plaintiff “requested leave to amend the pleadings in order to clearly comply … Further, Boyd establishes that it is error for the trial court to deny such an amendment based on futility.