Case law

Tripp v. Pate

49 N.C. App. 329 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Nov 4, 1980

Clearly Judge Rouse did not abuse his discretion in denying plaintiffs motion for a continuance. Second, plaintiff argues the trial court erred in denying her motion to strike and suppress portions of Dr. … Thus plaintiff herself established that Dr. Pate’s alleged failure to inform her of the risks inherent in the surgery was not a proximate cause of her injury.

APAC-Carolina, Inc. v. Greensboro-High Point Airport Authority

110 N.C. App. 664 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jul 6, 1993

The State’s sovereign immunity had only been waived as to those persons and corporations which had actually contracted with the State. … The contractual relationship in those cases was established and governed by a specific statute, which does not apply to the case now before us.

Matter of Johnson

45 N.C. App. 649 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Mar 18, 1980

case worker who had the respondent as a *654 foster child under her supervision for several years, the testimony of the foster parent who has taken care of respondent in her home for ten years, and the testimony of a duly qualified … Such conduct and personality traits in addition to mental retardation clearly tend to show that respondent failed to meet any acceptable standard of fitness to care for a child by providing a reasonable domestic environment

Ward v. Ward

88 N.C. App. 267 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Dec 22, 1987

Defendant guardian ad litem argues that the phrase “if he deems advisable and if practicable” qualifies the payment of both income and principal. … Accordingly, the construction of the will established by the trial court is affirmed. Affirmed. Judges Wells and Johnson concur.

Day v. Brant

218 N.C. App. 1 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jan 17, 2012

Defendants, however, contend that plaintiffs did not properly establish that Dr. Mele was qualified to provide expert testimony on the applicable standard of care. … Wyatt’s testimony to establish causation. Our Supreme Court in Holley v.

Trexler v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co.

145 N.C. App. 466 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Aug 7, 2001

By separate letter the same date, Crabtree also informed plaintiff the 'evidence presented at the investigation “clearly reflected] that [plaintiff was] guilty of the charge brought against [him,]” and that plaintiff was … element of the claim; or (3) showing that plaintiff cannot survive an affirmative defense, such as governmental immunity.

State v. Arnette

85 N.C. App. 492 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · May 5, 1987

The defendant, however, bears the burden of proving the existence of a factor by the preponderance of the evidence and convincing the sentencing judge “that ‘the evidence so clearly establishes the fact in issue that no reasonable … [sentencing] judge to decide, in his discretion, whether the statement was made at a sufficiently early stage of the criminal process as to qualify as a mitigating factor.”

State v. Black

197 N.C. App. 731 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jul 7, 2009

Defendant argues McConico merely parroted the information in the interview transcript because the trial court’s discussion of the rules of evidence “along with the court’s direct questions to the witness to establish a foundation … We conclude that this is not a case where the witness’ testimony was “clearly a mere recitation of the refreshing memorandum.” Smith, 291 N.C. at 518 , 231 S.E.2d at 671 (emphasis in original).

Fowler v. Graves

83 N.C. App. 403 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Nov 25, 1986

If all the evidence so clearly established the contributory negligence of the plaintiff as one of the proximate causes of the injury, that no other reasonable conclusion is possible, it was error not to allow the defendant … We believe the fact that the witness was qualified as a medical expert and had earlier stated that a head injury would cause symptoms of the type suffered by the plaintiff establishes a sufficient foundation to take the witness

Roberson's Beverages, Inc. v. City of New Bern

6 N.C. App. 632 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Dec 17, 1969

Funeral homes, undertaking establishments, and mortuaries. j. A commercial parking lot. k. … I am not qualified to give an opinion as to the expense of that.

Moore v. Proper

215 N.C. App. 202 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Sep 6, 2011

However, this Court has held that “even when a complaint facially complies with Rule 9(j) by including a statement pursuant to Rule 9(j), if discovery subsequently establishes that the statement is not supported by the facts … Rather, our review of Rule 9Q) compliance is de novo, because such compliance clearly presents a question of law. Id. at 255-56, 677 S.E.2d at 477 (internal.quotation marks, citations, and ellipsis omitted).

Zimmerman v. Appalachian State University

149 N.C. App. 121 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Mar 5, 2002

The Trustees reviewed the record established by the FGHC’s hearing, to determine whether Chancellor Borkowski’s decision was “clearly erroneous.” … This language clearly contemplates situations in which the Provost does not concur.

State v. Howard

78 N.C. App. 262 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Dec 17, 1985

By residing and practicing in *268 a state whose legislature has chosen to regulate the area of naturopathy, he is clearly outside the class. … In the case sub judice, the following evidence, taken as a whole, is sufficient to establish that defendant F.

Hubbard v. State Construction Office

130 N.C. App. 254 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jul 21, 1998

Moreover, the Court upheld the Commission’s conclusion that the Department of Correction (DOC) had clearly articulated a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for discharging the claimant, i.e. that claimant was discharged … Thus, we find that petitioner has met her initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of gender discrimination.

Cardwell v. FORSYTH CTY. ZON. BD. OF ADJ.

362 S.E.2d 843 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Dec 22, 1987

Section 33 clearly categorizes applications or requests for "special exceptions" as "appeals." … (b) If this Chapter and a local act each provide a procedure that contains every action necessary for the performance or execution of a power, right, duty, function, privilege, or immunity, the two procedures may be used

Goetz v. North Carolina Department of Health & Human Services

203 N.C. App. 421 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Apr 20, 2010

Lieberman estimated that there was a 75-80% chance that Hayden suffered from post-immunization encephalopathy. … In the alternative, defendant argues that the Full Commission erred by admitting and relying upon incompetent evidence to establish causation.

In re: E.D.

258 N.C. App. 435 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Mar 20, 2018

Three days later, a hearing was held in which a psychiatrist — who qualified as a “physician” for purposes of N.C. Gen. … Opinion of the Court establishing that a second qualified physician performed the examination required by G.S. 122-58.6.

Woodlief v. North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners

104 N.C. App. 52 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Sep 3, 1991

The North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners, like all other professional licensing boards, was created to establish and enforce a uniform statewide minimum level of competency among its licensees. … After making the necessary findings, the Board was clearly acting within its statutory authority when it suspended Dr. Woodlief’s license. G.S. 90-41(a)(3).

Turner v. Nicholson Properties, Inc.

80 N.C. App. 208 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Apr 1, 1986

In accordance with its rules the Association determined that the arbitrator’s prior association with claimant’s counsel was neither current, continuing, direct nor substantial, and concluded that the arbitrator was qualified … below, “[w]hile it might have been preferable had the Arbitrator not been the least bit acquainted with the parties or their counsel, the realities of today’s business world as well as the [Association] rules of procedure clearly

In Re the Adoption of P. E. P.

100 N.C. App. 191 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Sep 4, 1990

Plaintiffs made no effort to establish that Ms. … The trial court had refused to qualify her as an expert.