Case law

State v. Hinchman

192 N.C. App. 657 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Sep 16, 2008

Anderson did not testify as to her own qualifications the State could not establish that she was a “qualified person.” This argument ignores the governing statute and decisions of this Court. … Clearly, Mr.

State v. Puckett

43 N.C. App. 596 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Nov 6, 1979

Nor have the appellate courts of the State in applying this law to various tools and implements established a pattern so as to clarify the crime. See, 2 Strong’s N.C. Index 3d Burglary § 10.3. … Clearly it is the public policy of this State, as expressed in the statutes relating to detention or custodial care of juveniles, that juveniles have a special status apart from adults who are either detained in a jail awaiting

Cardwell v. Forsyth County Zoning Board of Adjustment

88 N.C. App. 244 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Dec 22, 1987

Section 33 clearly categorizes applications or requests for “special exceptions” as “appeals.” … (b) If this Chapter and a local act each provide a procedure that contains every action necessary for the performance or execution of a power, right, duty, function, privilege, or immunity, the two procedures may be used

Yassoo Enterprises, Inc. v. North Carolina Joint Underwriting Ass'n

73 N.C. App. 52 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Feb 19, 1985

Chief O’Ferrell was initially qualified only as an expert in arson investigation. … Those standards are also clearly established in our law. See Morrison v. Concord Kiwanis Club, 52 N.C. App. 454 , 279 S.E. 2d 96 , rev. denied, 304 N.C. 196 , 285 S.E. 2d 100 (1981).

Jones v. Service Roofing & Sheet Metal Co.

63 N.C. App. 772 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Sep 6, 1983

If this proceeding was at common law, the question would not be material, since the evidence clearly establishes that they were still legally married at his death, and she is thus his widow. … To qualify as the “widow” under our Workers’ Compensation law, being the surviving wife is not enough; if not living with her husband at the time of his death, it must be for “justifiable cause or by reason of his desertion

Simmons v. Chemol Corp.

137 N.C. App. 319 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Apr 4, 2000

Furthermore, plaintiff is unable to establish that he was “handicapped” under elements (ii) or (iii) of section 168A-3(4). Plaintiff also argues that he is a “qualified handicapped person” as defined by N.C. Gen. … The liability clearly does not extend to mere insults, indignities, threats, . ...” Id.

State v. Jones

85 N.C. App. 56 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Apr 7, 1987

Brown a few moments ago, and I will permit you to call any witness and ask that witness any question you choose to, inspect any records that that witness has to establish before this jury what you wish to choose to establish … Clearly, the legislature’s use of the word “mixture” establishes that the total weight of the dosage units of Dilaudid is sufficient basis to charge a suspect with trafficking.

State v. Howell

59 N.C. App. 184 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Oct 19, 1982

However, the testimony is relevant and material insofar as it establishes the defendant’s motive for possessing firearms and establishes a link between the witness and the defendant. … Even so, its admission was clearly harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt. These assignments of error have no merit.

Joyce v. Winston-Salem State University

91 N.C. App. 153 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Aug 16, 1988

established policy evinces a lack of fair and careful consideration. … Gwyn herself impliedly conceded that when she was hired in 1983 instead of petitioner, the petitioner was more qualified for the job because of her experience.

Holland v. French

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Sep 1, 2020

Donnie George Holland qualified as executor for her estate (“Plaintiff”). … The Tort Claims Act waives sovereign immunity.

Pasour v. Pierce

46 N.C. App. 636 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · May 6, 1980

Clearly, the granting of the City’s motion to dismiss the complaint as to it disposes of “the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties.” … Qualified Personnel, Inc., 294 N.C. 200 , 240 S.E. 2d 338 (1978). Accordingly, we hold that the plaintiff’s appeal is premature and must be dismissed. Appeal dismissed. Judges Arnold and Erwin concur.

Myers v. Liberty Lincoln-Mercury, Inc.

89 N.C. App. 335 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Mar 15, 1988

App. 562 , 305 S.E. 2d 769 (1983), and clearly support the conclusion of law that the misrepresentation violated G.S. 75-1.1. … These are the established facts on this question because the court’s unchallenged findings are based thereon; and they certainly do not establish that defendant is entitled as a matter of law to the dismissal of plaintiffs

Correll v. Division of Social Services

103 N.C. App. 562 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Aug 6, 1991

North Carolina provides medically needy coverage to those who meet income and resources limitations established by respondents pursuant to authority delegated by the General Assembly. … Given their position in the sentence the words “in addition” clearly mean in addition to the principal residence.

Campbell v. Duke University Health System, Inc.

203 N.C. App. 37 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Mar 16, 2010

with the standard of care where discovery subsequently established that the statement was not supported by the facts, dismissal is appropriate. … As such, it is not sufficiently reliable to qualify as competent evidence on issues of medical causation.

Snyder v. Duke Power Co.

15 N.C. App. 211 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jun 28, 1972

This is in contrast to the exercise of common and qualified rights which may be exercised only where there is justification therefor. … The record before us clearly establishes that the defendant was the owner of the power lines on which Harrison-Wright and the plaintiff were working.

Fox v. Trustees of Consolidated University of North Carolina

16 N.C. App. 53 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Aug 30, 1972

“(a) A nonresident shall be any person not qualifying for in-state tuition as hereinafter defined, (b) To qualify for in-state tuition, a legal resident must have maintained his domicile in North Carolina for at least the … Student status in an institution of higher learning in this State shall not constitute eligibility for residence to qualify said student for in-state tuition.”

Moore v. Frazier

63 N.C. App. 476 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Aug 2, 1983

The meaning of the words “For all claims” cannot be ascertained from the instrument itself, which contains no explanatory or qualifying information with respect thereto. … On the other hand, the evidence abundantly and clearly shows that plaintiffs had no intention whatever of compromising their claim against the defendant for Fireman’s Fund’s $10,000 draft, and, for that matter, had not even

State v. Boomer

168 N.C. App. 240 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jan 18, 2005

Our case law generally requires that, to qualify as an expert witness, an expert need only be better qualified than the jury as to the subject at hand, and thus that the testimony is helpful to the jury. State v. … Defendant made no objection, request of immunity for the passenger, or offer of proof after the passenger asserted hisprivilege.

Lorbacher v. Housing Authority of Raleigh

127 N.C. App. 663 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Nov 18, 1997

Officials who are sued in their individual capacity are personally liable for damages, although a defense of qualified immunity may be available to them. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 , 73 L. Ed. 2d 396 (1982). … The additional evidence failed to establish that the Housing Authority itself was responsible for the violation of plaintiff’s constitutional rights.

Vaughan v. Mashburn

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jun 21, 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 … The trial court’s conclusion that Vaughan’s amendment would be futile was therefore correct under our established precedent and not a misapprehension of law.