Case law

Royal v. State

153 N.C. App. 495 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Oct 15, 2002

App. 232 , 341 S.E.2d 98 (1986) (manager of fishing pier could not collaterally attack constitutionality of a statute regulating a 750-foot zone next to the pier because he could not establish he had been injured). … Based on the foregoing, we hold that public financing of political campaigns is clearly a legislative issue. The trial court’s order dismissing plaintiffs’ lawsuit is therefore *500 Affirmed.

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.

Hill v. Williams

144 N.C. App. 45 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jun 5, 2001

Wilson), a local veterinarian who had treated over five hundred Rottweiler dogs since the 1980’s, was qualified as plaintiffs’ expert witness. Dr. … taken in the light most favorable to plaintiff establishes h[is] negligence so clearly that no other reasonable inference or conclusion may be drawn therefrom.

Chesapeake Diagnostic Imaging Ctrs., LLC v. N.C. Dep't of Health & Hum. Servs.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jul 2, 2025

DHHS determined qualified applicants had submitted the two completed applications, and DHHS began its review on or about 1 October 2022. … Additionally, a party’s status as a denied qualified applicant with a conforming application does not, alone, establish substantial prejudice. Id. at 624, 762 S.E.2d at 471.

James ex rel. Edwards v. R.L. Dresser, Inc.

161 N.C. App. 394 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Dec 2, 2003

living with him, was not living apart from him for justifiable cause, and was not dependent upon decedent for support. *398 STANDARD OF REVIEW The scope of our review of a decision of the Industrial Commission has been clearly … The Winstead court did “not purport to establish a minimum percentage or to require mathematical certainty to determine substantial dependency of a stepchild.” Id. at 42 , 326 S.E.2d at 71 .

Hart v. Ivey

102 N.C. App. 583 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · May 7, 1991

In holding otherwise, the majority is extending the application of the statute to a class of persons to which the statute cannot clearly be held to apply. … Whitley, 281 N.C. 476, 484 , 189 S.E.2d 230, 235 (1972), in which the administrator for an unemancipated minor sought the abolition of parent-child immunity, a unanimous court held that “piecemeal abrogation of established

Gannett Pacific Corp. v. North Carolina State Bureau of Investigation

164 N.C. App. 154 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · May 4, 2004

Because Plaintiffs are statutorily entitled to any other information in the possession of the SBI that qualifies as public records under the Public Records Act, however, the trial court erred in part in ruling Plaintiffs’ … The principles governing statutory construction are well established: where the language of a statute is clear and unambiguous, there is no room for judicial construction and the courts must construe a statute using its plain

Leatherwood v. Ehlinger

151 N.C. App. 15 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jun 18, 2002

Jones’ testimony established an issue of fact to be resolved by the jury. Defendant also argues that plaintiffs failed to establish the applicable standard in that Dr. … Defendant maintains plaintiffs failed to qualify Dr. Jones pursuant to either of the criteria set forth *26 in Rule 702(b) in that Dr.

State v. Brewington

204 N.C. App. 68 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · May 18, 2010

It is not our position that every “peer review” will suffice to establish that the testifying expert is testifying to his or her expert opinion; however, in this case, we hold that Alloway’s testimony was sufficient to establish … As the Supreme Court clearly established in Melendez-Diaz , it is precisely these “ifs” that need to be explored upon cross-examination to test the reliability of the evidence. Melendez-Diaz , 557 U.S. at -, 174 L.

US Right to Know v. The Univ. of N.C. at Chapel Hill

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jan 7, 2026

We turn to established methods of statutory construction to clarify any statutory ambiguity within the text. See Jackson, 388 N.C. at 114–15, 919 S.E.2d at 204. … Plaintiff argues this Court should instead apply the series-qualifier canon found in Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid, 592 U.S. 395 (2021).

Waters v. Humphrey

33 N.C. App. 185 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · May 4, 1977

For example, the court found that “the plaintiffs and the defendants should share the cost of the survey equally,” which was clearly the court’s legal conclusion rather than a finding of fact. … Plaintiffs finally assign error to the court’s finding of fact no. 8, which established the boundary line as contended by defendants, and to the rendering of judgment in favor of defendants.

Rose v. LAKE NORMAN PEDIATRICS, PA

162 N.C. App. 36 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jan 6, 2004

Over the next few months, the doctors engaged in several activities relevant to the establishment of that practice. … Yet despite that qualifying event, additional evidence, undisputed by defendant, established that plaintiff was never given the opportunity to continue coverage.

Leach v. Alford

63 N.C. App. 118 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jul 5, 1983

circumstances, to obtain relief from an acknowledgment (judgment) of paternity, persuade us that the General Assembly did not intend to render court approved acknowledgments of paternity a unique category of judgments, peculiarly immune … Judgments of paternity clearly impact heavily on the property interests, liberty interests, and family relationships of the purported father.

State Ex Rel. Utilities Commission v. Kenan Transport Co.

10 N.C. App. 626 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Mar 31, 1971

The case at hand is clearly distinguishable. … It is well established that the Commission’s findings of fact are conclusive and binding when supported by competent, material, and substantial evidence in view of the entire record *632 as submitted.

Roberts v. Roberts

68 N.C. App. 163 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · May 1, 1984

Plaintiff contends this testimony clearly implies acts of adultery and was, therefore, inadmissible under G.S. 50-10. … If this comparison reveals that one spouse is without means to maintain his or her accustomed standard of living, then the former would qualify as the dependent spouse under the phrase “actually substantially dependent.”

N.C. Ass'n of Educators, Inc. v. State

241 N.C. App. 284 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jun 2, 2015

However, I believe Brand is clearly distinguishable. … However, those cases are clearly distinguishable.

In re Tucker

57 N.C. App. 705 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jun 15, 1982

It was offered to establish the truth of the matter stated. It thus was clearly inadmissible hearsay. See Wilson v. Indemnity Corp., 272 N.C. 183 , 158 S.E. 2d 1 (1967); Powers v. … No foundation was laid here establishing that the witness had observed the child or had facts within his knowledge on the basis of which to testify.

State v. Parker

76 N.C. App. 465 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Sep 3, 1985

This single incident involving the prosecu-trix and her boyfriend, a year prior to the alleged crime, does not qualify as a pattern of behavior under G.S. 8-58.6(b)(3), having probative value on the issue of consent which … The defendant argues further that the evidence of the prose-cutrix’s prior sexual conduct was necessary to impeach her and to establish the defense theory of fabrication.

Smith v. Axelbank

222 N.C. App. 555 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Aug 21, 2012

Stat. § 1A-1,] Rule 9(j) requirements clearly presents a question of law to be decided by a court, not a jury. A question of law is reviewable by this Court de novo. ” Phillips v. … Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 702 or must be a person the plaintiff will seek to have qualified as an expert witness under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 702(e). N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 9(j)(1)-(2) (2011).

Robinson v. Halifax Reg'l Med. Ctr.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Apr 21, 2020

Opinion of the Court with Rule 9(j) and there has been no discovery conclusively establishing that Plaintiffs were not reasonable in expecting their Rule 9(j) expert would qualify as an expert at the time they filed … Rather, our review of Rule 9(j) compliance is de novo, because such compliance clearly presents a question of law. Barringer v. Wake Forest Univ. Baptist Med. Ctr., 197 N.C.