Case law

Guilford Mills, Inc. v. Powers

95 N.C. App. 417 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Sep 5, 1989

The payments owed to plaintiff clearly qualified as accounts receivable according to the definition stated above, since these payments were amounts owed by one corporate person to another on accounts which had balances which … Account *421 (1985), and the payments owed to plaintiff also clearly qualified as accounts receivable according to this definition.

State v. Norton

213 N.C. App. 75 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jun 21, 2011

This evidence was clearly sufficient to support the charge of driving while impaired. See id. … Goode, 341 N.C. 513, 529 , 461 S.E.2d 631, 640 (1995). 2 By allowing the testimony, the trial judge implicitly ruled that the witness was qualified to testify on that subject. State v.

Allen v. Carolina Permanente Medical Group, P.A.

139 N.C. App. 342 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Aug 1, 2000

motion under [Evidence] Rule 702(e) . . . and who is 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 … We reiterate that statutory law clearly states that where the party against whom expert testimony is offered is a specialist, the expert witness MUST also a. Specialize in the same specialty . . . ; or b.

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.

State v. Huang

99 N.C. App. 658 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Aug 7, 1990

We find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s determination that Dr. *665 Roth was qualified as an expert. … This testimony was erroneously admitted and clearly prejudiced the defendant. See Wilkinson, at 570, 247 S.E.2d at 911; see also State v.

Brewer v. Cabarrus Plastics, Inc.

130 N.C. App. 681 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Sep 15, 1998

The EEOC determined plaintiff “was not as qualified as the selectee” for promotion and that CPI “properly followed” its promotion and wages practice. … By contrast, the record in the case sub judice does not “clearly” demonstrate plaintiffs lack of qualifications for the job.

State v. Ford

136 N.C. App. 634 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Feb 15, 2000

Finding Goodwin controlling, defendant’s assertions, without more, do not establish a showing of prosecutorial vindictiveness. … As such this evidence does not qualify as an exception to the hearsay rale.

State v. Knoll

84 N.C. App. 228 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Feb 3, 1987

Nothing in the record supports the trial court’s findings that would clearly indicate what, if any, evidence bearing on the issue of guilt or innocence was lost. … That statute requires in part that the defendant “may have a qualified person of his own choosing administer a chemical test or *235 tests in addition to any test administered at the direction of the charging officer.”

BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc. v. North Carolina Department of Revenue

126 N.C. App. 409 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jun 3, 1997

The burden of proof is on the taxpayer to establish a deductible loss and its amount. Ward v. Clayton, 5 N.C. App. 53, 58 , 167 S.E.2d 808, 811 (1969), aff'd, 276 N.C. 411 , 172 S.E.2d 531 (1970). … The merged company offering CPE and a host of other telecommunication services clearly enlarged the assets of the former ASI.

State v. Gleason

24 N.C. App. 732 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Mar 5, 1975

Clearly, the evidence in State v. Stacy, supra, raised the issue of guilty knowledge, which made it necessary for the trial court to give specific instructions. … McDonald’s credentials more than adequately supported him as an expert in the field of forensic chemistry, thereby enabling him to express a qualified opinion, following his chemical analysis, as to the contents of the package

Southminster, Inc. v. Justus

119 N.C. App. 669 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Aug 1, 1995

Plaintiffs are also both exempt from local property taxes as qualifying homes for the aged. … We determined that the property did not qualify for the exemption because it was not being held for charitable purposes.

Carden v. Owle Construction, LLC

218 N.C. App. 179 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jan 17, 2012

A few, well-established principles of law bear repeating at the outset, beginning with the proposition that federal power to regulate Indian affairs is plenary and supreme. … The states generally have only such power over Indian affairs on a reservation as is granted by Congress, while the tribes retain powers inherent to a sovereign state, except as qualified and limited by Congress.

Tucker v. City of Clinton

120 N.C. App. 776 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Nov 21, 1995

The Commission determined that Donald Tucker had conditionally acknowledged the child prior to his death, qualified upon receipt of the blood test results. … Thus, to qualify for survivor’s benefits under the Act, an illegitimate child must be acknowledged in sufficient fashion by the father.

Furr v. Pinoca Volunteer Fire Department of Paw Creek Township, Inc.

53 N.C. App. 458 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Aug 18, 1981

Thus, the directed verdict against this plaintiff can be sustained only if plaintiffs’ evidence, considered in the light most favorable to this plaintiff, so clearly established her own negligence as one of the proximate … At the time of the collision here G.S. 1-539.21, abolishing parent-child immunity in motor vehicle cases, had not been enacted.

Estate of Wooden ex rel. Jones v. Hillcrest Convalescent Center, Inc.

222 N.C. App. 396 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Aug 21, 2012

“[A] plaintiff’s compliance with Rule 9(j) requirements clearly presents a question of law to be decided by a court, not a jury.” Phillips v. A Triangle Women’s Health Clinic, Inc., 155 N.C. … As no affidavits were included in the record on this issue, it is difficult to understand how Defendants could establish the factual predicate for Rule 11.

McGee v. Colonial Life & Accident Insurance

51 N.C. App. 72 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Mar 3, 1981

Callison’s expert opinion testimony is clearly competent and persuasive, but it is not conclusive. … Callison’s own evaluation of plaintiff was cautious and qualified as to the cause of his pain and disability.

Conner v. Continental Industrial Chemicals, Inc.

123 N.C. App. 70 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jul 2, 1996

This proffered instruction was clearly not supported by the evidence at trial. See Millis Construction Co., 86 N.C. App. at 509-10 , 358 S.E.2d at 568 . … A judgment notwithstanding the verdict is proper only if the evidence taken in the light most favorable to the plaintiff establishes that no other reasonable inference can be drawn. Allen v. Pullen, 82 N.C.

State v. Fuller

166 N.C. App. 548 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Oct 19, 2004

Qualification Defendant argues Nurse Smith was not qualified to testify as an expert. In Howerton v. … Our Supreme Court clearly recognizes that “an expert witness may testify, upon a proper foundation, as to the profiles of sexually abused children and whether a particular complainant has symptoms or characteristics consistent

State v. Oakes

209 N.C. App. 18 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jan 4, 2011

However, the prosecutor objected, and the trial court sustained the objection, allowing Cloutier to testify without being qualified as an expert. … A judge’s ordinary efforts at courtroom administration — even *31 a stern and short-tempered judge’s ordinary efforts at courtroom administration — remain immune.”) (emphasis in original).

State v. McClain

4 N.C. App. 265 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Apr 2, 1969

Miller, supra, and that the evidence of identity was not “inherently incredible because of undisputed facts, clearly established by the State’s evidence, as to the physical conditions under which the alleged observation occurred … “It is thoroughly established in our decisions that the admission of evidence which is not prejudicial to a defendant does not entitle him to a new trial.