Case law

Bell Arthur Water Corp. v. North Carolina Department of Transportation

101 N.C. App. 305 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jan 15, 1991

We hold that the statute logically implies waiver of sovereign immunity as to those costs the Department of Transportation is obligated to pay. … The affidavit of the president of plaintiff did not sufficiently establish those figures as accurate non-betterment costs.

State v. Jones

106 N.C. App. 214 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · May 5, 1992

Stat. § 20-139.1 (d) to have a qualified person *217 of his own choosing administer additional chemical tests, or to have a qualified person withdraw blood for later testing by a person of defendant’s choosing. … App. 567 , 389 S.E.2d 425 , disc, review denied, 326 N.C. 599 , 393 S.E.2d 873 (1990) (procedure established by N.C. Gen. Stat. § 20-139.1 (d) for obtaining additional chemical tests satisfies due process requirements).

King v. North Carolina Department of Transportation

121 N.C. App. 706 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Mar 5, 1996

A defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law if it can establish “plaintiff cannot overcome an affirmative defense or legal bar to a claim.” Wilder v. Hobson, 101 N.C. … Initially we note, were it not for the dispositive effect of issue preclusion, the classification of Anders, Arrant, and Nichols as “non-outsiders,” with the attendant qualified immunity, would merit consideration.

State v. Underwood

134 N.C. App. 533 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Aug 17, 1999

DiZinno”) were two of the witnesses qualified by the court as experts. … While there are some differences, the evidence clearly shows several significant similarities.

Izydore v. Tokuta

242 N.C. App. 434 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Aug 4, 2015

"To have a property interest in a benefit, a person clearly must have more than an abstract need or desire" and "more than a unilateral expectation of it. He must, instead, have a legitimate claim of entitlement to it." … Here, unlike in Monell , where there was a clearly protected interest at stake, we have concluded there were no matured interests sufficient to warrant constitutional protection under section 1983.

State v. Hargrave

198 N.C. App. 579 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Aug 4, 2009

Additionally, admission of testimony as to this type of chemical analysis is routine, and this technique is well established. Because of Ms. … The testimony of the prior transactions is admissible because it establishes a common plan or scheme.

In Re the Appeal of the Atlantic Coast Conference

112 N.C. App. 1 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Sep 21, 1993

In addition, statutes exempting property are construed so that everything is excluded except that which clearly comes within the scope of the language used. Wake County v. Inqle, 273 N.C. 343 , 160 S.E.2d 62 (1968). … Part of this role involves negotiating television contracts, following NCAA rules and regulations regarding eligibility and in some cases even establishing more stringent rules concerning academic eligibility.

Blair Concrete Services, Inc. v. Van-Allen Steel Co.

152 N.C. App. 215 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Aug 6, 2002

[T]he party moving for summary judgment has the burden of establishing the lack of any triable issue of fact. … Since we believe that the *219 statute clearly requires that this fact be established before the employer (Blair) could “proceed to enforce the liability” of Van-Alien and R.P., and there is nothing at all in the record tending

Presley v. Griggs

88 N.C. App. 226 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Dec 22, 1987

The evidence clearly showed that since that time the road was the only means utilized to reach the larger tract, a period well in excess of 50 years. … Clearly, if these exhibits were not properly verified and therefore incompetent, their admission would give rise to reversible error and the jury verdict would fail.

Alt v. Parker

112 N.C. App. 307 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Oct 19, 1993

Plaintiff alleges both that Parker failed to follow the established procedures and that he did not exercise his professional judgment in deciding to restrain plaintiff. … However, the DHR Rules require that a qualified professional verify the inadequacy.

Liebes v. Guilford County Department of Public Health

213 N.C. App. 426 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jul 19, 2011

employment because they hire employees to serve the food and alcohol that would otherwise bring them within the reach of the Smoking Ban, suggesting: it is difficult to understand how the General Assembly, on one hand, could clearly … In fashioning a definition of private club that best represented the types of establishments it deemed appropriate for exemption from the Act, the General Assembly clearly had to draw the line somewhere.

State v. Thompson

37 N.C. App. 628 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Aug 29, 1978

Clearly, this argument is erroneous. … In Thompson’s case the State’s evidence was clearly sufficient to withstand a motion for nonsuit.

Robinson v. Duszynski

36 N.C. App. 103 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Apr 18, 1978

Under the provisions of Rule 56 of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure, the party moving for summary judgment has the burden of clearly establishing that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that … Duke’s evidence showed that it retained a reputable agency, the Corson Group, to locate a qualified physician to practice in Sea Level. That agency’s investigation revealed that Dr.

Saad v. Town of Surf City

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Dec 17, 2024

“Only where the evidence establishes the plaintiff’s own negligence so clearly that no other reasonable conclusion may be reached is summary judgment to be granted.” Nicholson v. Am. Safety Util. … Finally, the Town contends it is protected by governmental immunity as a matter of law.

State ex rel. Utilities Commission v. NUI Corp.

154 N.C. App. 258 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Dec 3, 2002

Utilities Comm., 336 N.C. at 666 , 446 S.E.2d at 338 (emphasis added), it also clearly has the authority to exercise limited discretion in determining whether the establishment of a particular expansion fund is in the best … As the *266 town of Stoneville clearly qualified as an unserved area, however, we do not address this issue.

Zahren v. Maytag Co.

37 N.C. App. 143 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jul 11, 1978

Obviously Hinkle’s testimony was highly prejudicial to plaintiffs’ efforts to establish negligence or breach of implied warranty, but that does not render it incompetent. … Hinkle was qualified and permitted to testify as an expert in physical science and fire analysis. There is no controversy but that this was proper.

N.C. Steel, Inc. v. National Council on Compensation Insurance

123 N.C. App. 163 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jul 16, 1996

Employers which are required to insure workers under Chapter 97 and are not qualified to self-insure, or choose not to self-insure, must purchase insurance from a private company. … Ed. 2d 413 : [W]e disagree, however, with [plaintiffs’] view that the issue in Keogh and in this case is properly characterized as an “immunity” question.

Brown v. N.C. Dep't of Envtl. Quality

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · May 7, 2025

The trial court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint based upon sovereign immunity. On appeal, this Court reversed the superior court, holding in part the State had waived sovereign immunity. Brown v. … “State statutes waiving this immunity, being in derogation of the sovereign right to immunity, must be strictly construed.” Guthrie v. N.C.

Coley v. Garris

87 N.C. App. 493 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Nov 3, 1987

“No particular form is required in order to preserve the right to assert the alleged error upon appeal if the motion or ob *496 jection clearly presented the alleged error to the trial court.” Id. … Trooper Booth’s testimony placing the speed of the motorcycle at 75 miles per hour was, without question, material to the defense which defendants sought to establish.

Bd. of Examiners v. STATE BD. OF EDUC.

468 S.E.2d 826 · 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. … This description is in essence a floor, establishing a minimum standard for any person providing speech pathology services in North Carolina.