Case law

Leonard v. Bell

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Aug 4, 2020

Defendants appealed the trial court’s denial of their motion to dismiss based upon public official immunity, and this Court affirmed. … BELL Opinion of the Court Carolina Department of Correction Immunization Record/T.B.

State v. Powell

223 N.C. App. 77 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Oct 2, 2012

Accordingly, the existence of a prior conviction may be established by, inter alia, “[stipulation of the parties.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1340.14(f)(l). … The defendant objected, noting there was no “clearly defined dictionary of street gang lingo, and I think that if some of these words are open to interpretation, then the wrong interpretation would be extremely damaging [

Early v. Bowen

116 N.C. App. 206 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Sep 6, 1994

the testator shall pass by substitution to his qualified issue .... *210 (b) The term “qualified issue” as used in subsection (a) means issue of the deceased person who would have been an heir of the testator under the provisions … The word ‘survivor’. . . was clearly intended by the testatrix to mean the beneficiary who was living at the time of her decease, provided the other was then dead.

MLC Automotive, LLC v. Town of Southern Pines

207 N.C. App. 555 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Nov 2, 2010

“North Carolina does, however, recognize two methods for a landowner to establish a vested right in a zoning ordinance: (1) qualify with relevant statutes . . .; or (2) qualify under the common law[.]” … As we conclude that summary judgment was properly granted to defendants on the merits, we do not address the immunity issues.

Kashino v. Carolina Vet. Spec. Med. Servs.

186 N.C. App. 418 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Oct 16, 2007

Tultex Corp., 308 N.C. 85 , 93-94, 301 S.E.2d 359 , 365 (1983) (in order to establish occupational disease under N.C. … Jemsek nonetheless qualified this opinion on cross-examination: Q. Okay. Dr.

Trotter v. NC Department of Health & Human Services

189 N.C. App. 655 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Apr 15, 2008

Trotter and seven other applicants as qualified by the human resources staff. Pritchard interviewed two internal applicants listed on the Applicant Selection Log that he also determined to be qualified. … Furthermore the uncontroverted evidence clearly demonstrates that Dr. Trotter, unlike some discrimination claimants, was extremely well qualified for *661 the position she sought. It is also beyond question that Dr.

L. Richardson Memorial Hospital, Inc. v. Allen

72 N.C. App. 499 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Feb 5, 1985

The record indicates that the evidence was clearly sufficient to establish a right to relief. … Blount carefully qualified his role in diagnosing Ms. Guy’s illnesses and treating her. He testified that he was the “attendant in charge,” that he saw Ms.

State v. Castleberry

73 N.C. App. 420 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Mar 5, 1985

G.S. 15A-1052 requires the court to disclose to the jury whether a prosecution witness is testifying under immunity. … While the present offense clearly involved the deputy clerk, she was not the victim of the crime and the aggravating factor found by the court would not apply.

State v. Eisen

16 N.C. App. 532 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Nov 22, 1972

It is a well established principle of law in this State that the charge of the court will be construed contextually, and segregated portions will not be held prejudicial error when the charge as a whole is free from any prejudice … If all *537 persons who played the game were as qualified as Davis, a different view might be justified, but, of course, that is not the case.

Smith v. UNC-HOSPITALS

167 N.C. App. 371 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Dec 7, 2004

A prima facie case of discrimination is established by demonstrating that the claimant: (1) is a member of a protected class; (2) applied for the position in question; (3) is qualified for the position; and (4) was rejected … Thus, petitioner has clearly satisfied the first two prongs of the prima facie case requirements. The third prong requires that the claimant demonstrate she is qualified for the position offered by the employer. See id.

State v. Reeder

105 N.C. App. 343 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Feb 18, 1992

We find the testimony of both examining psychologists established a sufficient foundation to permit the trial court to allow their expert opinions to be admitted into evidence. This contention is without merit. … These statements, even if relevant, have no probative value and are clearly prejudicial. See N.C.R. Evid. 403.

GUILFORD COUNTY EX REL. HOLT v. Puckett

191 N.C. App. 693 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Aug 5, 2008

As noted above, that genetic marker testing established that defendant could not be the father of the minor child at issue. … Clearly, the trial court believed defendant had no relationship with plaintiff mother, a finding that would justify an award of attorney’s fees.

Southern Glove Manufacturing Co. v. City of Newton

75 N.C. App. 574 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jul 2, 1985

They also argue that the two lots adjoining West 25th Street do not qualify as sub-areas under G.S. 160A-48(d)(2). … The appellants also contend that the two lots adjoining West 25th Street do not qualify as a sub-area under G.S. 160A-48(d)(2).

State v. Carter

216 N.C. App. 453 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Nov 1, 2011

Stivenson was qualified to deliver. See State v. Murphy, 100 N.C. … Stivenson clearly admitted that she was not qualified to engage in such activities. As a result, the trial court did not err by refusing to admit Vanessa’s statement pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 803(4).

Enoch v. Alamance County Dep't of Social Services

164 N.C. App. 233 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · May 18, 2004

The burden to establish a prima facie case under McDonnell Douglas and Gibson is not an onerous one, but is as follows: (1) plaintiff is a member of a minority group; (2) she was qualified for a promotion; (3) she was passed … Hodge was better qualified, we affirmed that the record supported the Commission’s conclusion that he was more qualified.

Wiggs v. Edgecombe County

179 N.C. App. 47 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Aug 1, 2006

Defendants filed a timely answer denying plaintiffs allegations, and asserted the affirmative defenses of failure to mitigate and immunity. Plaintiff and defendants both filed motions for summary judgment. … Therefore, the City, as the governing body, ceased payments pursuant to their previously established and enacted resolution.

Ridenhour v. Life Ins. Co. of Virginia

46 N.C. App. 765 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · May 20, 1980

The application has clearly divided sections headed PROPOSED Insured A, Proposed Insured b, and Proposed insured C —CHILDREN (Family Plan or Parent Child). … However, this representation, if made, would not establish a reasonable interpretation of the contract; it would directly contradict the written policy. Under long established precedent, this may not be done.

Pyco Supply Co. Inc. v. American Centennial Ins. Co.

85 N.C. App. 114 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Apr 7, 1987

The legislature’s adoption of an outer limit or repose . . . clearly [has] the effect of granting the defendant an immunity to actions . . . after the applicable period of time has elapsed. (Citations omitted.) … The legislature’s adoption of an outer limit or repose of one year clearly grants sureties immunity to payment bond actions after the applicable period has elapsed. See Black, 312 N.C. at 633 , 325 S.E. 2d at 475 .

Blackwelder v. State Department of Human Resources

60 N.C. App. 331 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jan 18, 1983

Qualified Personnel, Inc., 294 N.C. 200, 208 , 240 S.E. 2d 338, 343 (1978). … The right must be one which will clearly be lost or irremediably adversely affected if the order is not reviewable before final judgment.

Griffin v. N.C. State Bd. of Elections

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Apr 4, 2025

Our General Statutes also clearly provide notice does not need to be given to any affected party until after it has been established an evidentiary hearing is set to take place. Id. … Again, although an adult may not inherit domicile, a child clearly does. Thayer, 187 N.C. at 574, 122 S.E. at 308. And a child retains that domicile until they affirmatively establish a new one.