Case law

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.

N.C. Monroe Construction Co. v. State

155 N.C. App. 320 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Dec 31, 2002

The State therefore argues that with no authority to enter into a valid contract, “the State is immune from suit in relation to the $87.5 million portion of the bond program.” … While the language of section 239(f) could have been drafted more clearly, we interpret the section to grant authority to OSBM to contract for the entire $200 million.

Adams v. State of NC

248 N.C. App. 463 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Aug 2, 2016

Principles Governing Contracts With the State It is well established in North Carolina that “an appointment or election to public office does not establish contract relations between the person[s] appointed or … Clearly any other rule would subordinate the public welfare to the interest of the officer.

State v. Moxley

78 N.C. App. 551 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Dec 31, 1985

The defendant maintains that the procedure of death qualifying a jury results in a guilt prone jury. … Although my intuitive convictions—that a death-qualified jury is more prone to convict than a non-death-qualified jury and fails to represent a fair cross-section of the community—have been verified based on methodologically

Thomas Jefferson Classical Acad. Charter Sch. v. Cleveland Cnty. Bd. of Educ.

243 N.C. App. 797 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Nov 3, 2015

CCS was required to obtain approval for the purchase of qualified technology services in advance and only then could the school system purchase the service. … To the contrary, the evidence established that E-rate funds would never have been provided to defendant but for its compliance with the federal government's lengthy and detailed approval process to ensure that only qualified

Ruffin v. Compass Group USA

150 N.C. App. 480 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jun 4, 2002

In the instant case, the evidence establishes that plaintiff sustained an injury as a result of a specific traumatic incident. … Clearly, the evidence establishes that plaintiff’s new job duties required more lifting and more physical work exertion.

MH Mission Hosp., LLLP v. N.C. Dep't of Health & Hum. Servs.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jun 18, 2025

The ALJ found “as of the time of the hearing, it has not been established that [Advent] cannot use the . . . … While the EPA Brownfield designation clearly prohibits numerous activities, as was found by the ALJ, none prohibits building a hospital on the site.

Paxton v. O.P.F., Inc.

64 N.C. App. 130 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Sep 20, 1983

For the court to base its judgment and award on that theory, defendant contends, was therefore both unfair and contrary to the established law in North Carolina. … Even though the $22,500 figure may be, in plaintiffs words, “extremely reasonable,” especially in view of $32,150 prayed for in the Complaint, the evidence supporting that figure is clearly inadequate. Turner v.

Harris v. NCNB National Bank of North Carolina

85 N.C. App. 669 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · May 19, 1987

Rather, plaintiff asserts that, at most, defendant is protected by a qualified privilege. … The statements were clearly relevant to the issues and subject matter of the anticipated litigation, as disclosed by the unfiled complaint, in that the statements expressed the legal and factual reasons for NCNB’s position

Lewis v. Rapp

220 N.C. App. 299 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · May 1, 2012

Defendant was clearly trying to bolster the validity of his false accusation by asserting that someone with expertise in the field of law concurred with his assessment. See Action Repair, Inc. v. … The evidence tends to establish that he acted, at the very least, with reckless disregard, i.e., he entertained serious doubts as to the truth of his publication.

State v. Graham

35 N.C. App. 700 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Apr 4, 1978

“The court’s finding that a witness is qualified as an expert will not be disturbed on appeal if there is evidence to show that, through study or experience, or both, he has acquired such skill that he is better qualified … The evidence of training Hurst received prior to conducting the tests was clearly adequate to establish his qualifications to conduct the tests.

State v. Thacker

45 N.C. App. 102 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Feb 5, 1980

Clearly, the proffered testimony of Sandra Staley was inadmissible hearsay and the court properly excluded it. … None of these conditions is established in the record before us.

State v. Clifton

158 N.C. App. 88 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · May 20, 2003

The Supreme Court stated the California Court of Appeal decision was not contrary to or an “unreasonable application” of the Supreme Court’s “clearly established” law. Id. at —, 155 L. Ed. 2d at 159 . … While the Supreme Court did state that “one governing legal principle emerges as ‘clearly established’ under [28 U.S.C.] § 2254(d)(1): A gross disproportionality principle is applicable to sentences for terms of years,” the

Capps v. NW SIGN INDUSTRIES OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.

648 S.E.2d 577 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Aug 21, 2007

An interlocutory order that affects a substantial right — i.e. , a right that "will clearly be lost or irremediably and adversely affected if the order is not reviewed before final judgment" — is immediately appealable. … Much as with the motion to dismiss based upon sovereign immunity in RPR II, the motion to dismiss based upon a forum-selection clause was interlocutory. See Capps, 171 N.C.

Mendenhall v. North Carolina Department of Human Resources

119 N.C. App. 644 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Aug 1, 1995

On 24 July 1989, Moses Cone Hospital referred to DSB a prospective client known to be infected with Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS). … She could not turn to the resource specialists because one was pregnant and the other was not qualified to teach the independent living skills requested by the client.

State v. Hadden

226 N.C. App. 330 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Apr 2, 2013

Consequently, atrial court, in determining whether a defendant qualifies for SBM, may not consider grounds outside of those enumerated in the SBM statutes. … Where, as here, “[t]he trial court clearly heard the evidence and found the facts against [a party] under a misapprehension of the controlling law,” the court’s findings should be “set aside on the theory that the evidence

Erie Insurance Exchange v. St. Stephen's Episcopal Church

153 N.C. App. 709 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Nov 5, 2002

Stephen’s argues that the qualifiers of the exclusion are inapplicable and do not bar exclusion in this case. First, St. … Stephen’s further argues that the second qualifier fails to save the exclusion because there is no evidence as to what objective an eight-year-old could intend or reasonably expect to result from his actions, thus the qualifier

North Carolina Department of Health & Human Services v. Maxwell

156 N.C. App. 260 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Mar 4, 2003

Here, the superior court’s order clearly reflects the standard of review applied to each issue. Thus, we must determine whether the superior court properly applied that standard of review. … Thus, after de novo'review, we conclude that Respondent is a qualified handicapped person.

State v. Youngs

141 N.C. App. 220 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Dec 29, 2000

This testimony established a sufficient foundation to permit the trial court to allow Dr. Lattimer’s expert opinion to be admitted into evidence. … The statute clearly prohibits sexual conduct with a minor child and describes with reasonable specificity the proscribed conduct.” State v.

State v. Moore

152 N.C. App. 156 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Aug 6, 2002

A search warrant must contain a “designation sufficient to establish with reasonable certainty the premises, vehicles, or persons to be searched,” and a “description or a designation of the items constituting the object of … The record clearly supports the trial court’s findings that the length of Dennis’s employment as a narcotics officer, as well as his knowledge of cocaine manufacturing, the division and packaging of *163 the drug, and his