Case law

State v. Clifton

580 S.E.2d 40 · 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. … 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

State v. Long

58 N.C. App. 467 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Aug 3, 1982

Finally, omission of the stated charge was without prejudice since, even had the trial court given the instruction, the testimony would still have established that Logan was traveling in excess of 55 m.p.h. … Thus, even *475 though never qualified as an expert, he was clearly more qualified than the jury to form an opinion as to the transmission capabilities of the amateur radio found in the U-Haul truck. Id.

Phillips v. a Triangle Women's Health Clinic, Inc.

155 N.C. App. 372 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Dec 31, 2002

9Q) states, in pertinent part, that a complaint alleging medical malpractice shall be dismissed unless the pleading specifically asserts that the medical care has been reviewed by a person who is reasonably expected to qualify … Our appellate courts have not clearly set forth the standard by which to review a trial court’s motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 9(j).

Mabry v. Huneycutt

149 N.C. App. 630 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Apr 2, 2002

Kimrey’s death, thus complying with the outside time limitation established by N.C. Gen. … The statutory scheme clearly contemplates that these roles are separate and distinct. See N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 28A-28-2(a)(8), 28A-28-3, 28A-28-7 (1999).

Brickhouse v. Brickhouse

104 N.C. App. 69 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Sep 3, 1991

A motion for judgment on the pleadings should not be granted unless “the movant clearly establishes that no material issue of fact remains to be resolved and that he is entitled to *73 judgment as a matter of law.” … Carr qualified as an attesting witness under N.C.G.S. § 31-3.3.

Williams v. Riley

56 N.C. App. 427 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Mar 16, 1982

This aspect of plaintiffs cause of action is clearly founded in tort. … We find that plaintiff and his friends leased defendants’ cottage, establishing a landlord-tenant relationship between himself and the Rileys.

State v. Poplin

56 N.C. App. 304 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Mar 16, 1982

The witness had established a chain of custody for the evidence and testified that his chemical analysis showed it was cocaine. … A person may qualify as an expert witness if “through study or experience, or both, he has acquired such skill that he is better qualified than the jury to form an opinion on the particular subject.”

LeTendre v. Currituck Cty.

259 N.C. App. 512 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · May 15, 2018

App. 317, 318, 749 S.E.2d 469, 471 (2013) (“It is well-established that a preliminary injunction is an interlocutory order.”) … In the definition of Single Family Dwelling, the context does clearly indicate otherwise.

State v. Hamilton

335 S.E.2d 506 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Oct 29, 1985

Statements by defendant that he believed the law in Anson County did not prevent the killing of blacks clearly tended to prove malice. … Only when uncontradicted evidence clearly establishes a fact beyond a reasonable doubt is a peremptory instruction appropriate. State v.

State v. Carey

266 N.C. App. 362 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jul 16, 2019

The rule of lenity “forbids a court to interpret a statute so as to increase the penalty that it places on an individual when the Legislature has not clearly stated such an intention.” State v. Wiggins, 210 N.C. … As in Defendant’s first argument, this Court established in Sherrod that a grenade is a weapon “used in destroying, defeating, or physically injuring an enemy.” Sherodd, 191 N.C. App. at 781, 663 S.E.2d at 474.

State v. Pearson

32 N.C. App. 213 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jan 19, 1977

Fahl, was qualified without objection as an expert in the field of general surgery. On direct examination, he testified that one of the wounds in the victim’s neck was within a fraction of an inch of the carotid artery. … It is clearly established in this State that “[e]xpert testimony may be presented to the jury through the testimony of an expert based on his own personal knowledge and observation. ...” State v.

State v. Hamilton

77 N.C. App. 506 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Oct 29, 1985

Statements by defendant that he believed the law in Anson County did not prevent the killing of blacks clearly tended to prove malice. … Only when uncontradicted evidence clearly establishes a fact beyond a reasonable doubt is a peremptory instruction appropriate. State v. Bowen, 67 N.C.

Long v. Long

71 N.C. App. 405 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Nov 20, 1984

This clearly constituted error. Suit for divorce from bed and board is not exclusively a means for collection of alimony, but also a means of establishing a certain legal relationship. See Schlagel v. … The court’s finding that no evidence was introduced as to defendant’s income and take home pay thus clearly constituted error.

State Ex Rel. Utilities Commission v. Environmental Defense Fund

214 N.C. App. 364 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Aug 2, 2011

All wood fuel is clearly encompassed by each of these definitions. … However, these categories do not meet the test established in Fenner because they are very different from each other. See Id.

Taylor Home of Charlotte Inc. v. City of Charlotte

116 N.C. App. 188 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Sep 6, 1994

Plaintiff is a North Carolina non-profit corporation established for the purpose of providing housing for persons with full-blown acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS). … Those persons with full-blown AIDS are persons who have developed at least one life-threatening clinical condition that is clearly linked to HIV-caused immunodeficiency. Nancy A.

State v. Smith

125 N.C. App. 562 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Mar 4, 1997

In the instant case, the evidence complained of was apparently offered to establish a specific intent to harm or kill the victim after premeditation and deliberation. … Specific intent, premeditation and malice are elements required to establish first or second degree murder. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-17 (1993).

Armistead v. Shaw

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Aug 6, 2025

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. … of immunity.”); see also McCullers v.

State v. O'HANLAN

153 N.C. App. 546 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Nov 5, 2002

The challenged testimony summarized the pattern of injuries and constituted a medical conclusion which the witness was fully qualified to render. … In order to establish ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must establish (1) that his attorney’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness; and (2) that the defend *565 ant was prejudiced by

State v. McCloud

7 N.C. App. 132 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jan 14, 1970

The findings of fact he did make were supported by the evidence, and these findings, when considered with the other facts established by the uncontradicted evidence at the voir dire, fully support his ruling. … Ordinarily “(t)he right to immunity from unreasonable searches and seizures is personal, and can be asserted only by him whose rights are violated.” 47 Am. Jur. 2d, Searches and Seizures, § 11, p. 508.

State v. Weldon

258 N.C. App. 150 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Feb 20, 2018

Accordingly, in that defendant had changed his appearance since the 2 April 2015 surveillance video, not only was Officer Williams qualified to identity defendant in the video, but he was “better qualified than the jury … The jury was also shown defendant’s distinctive hair style and told about his limp, which were both clearly visible in the surveillance footage.