Case law

Calhoun v. WHA MEDICAL CLINIC, PLLC

178 N.C. App. 585 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Aug 1, 2006

In general, the Plaintiffs comprise a collection of uniquely qualified and talented and skilled physicians. … Kuykendall, 322 N.C. 643, 648 , 370 S.E.2d 375, 379 (1988), and “medical doctors are by no means immune from such agreements.” Iredell Digestive Disease Clinic, P.A. v. Petrozza, 92 N.C.

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.

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

Guilford County Board of Education v. Guilford County Board of Elections

110 N.C. App. 506 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jun 15, 1993

In challenging the constitutionality of a statute, the burden of proof is on the challenger, and the statute must be upheld unless its unconstitutionality clearly, positively, and unmistakably appeal’s beyond a reasonable … Plaintiffs contend that the Act fails to qualify as a general law under either the Adams reasonable classification standard or an Emerald Isle general welfare test, both of which were specifically addressed by the able trial

State v. Gainey

84 N.C. App. 107 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jan 20, 1987

Bailey, 444 U.S. 394 (1980), and qualified its use as follows: Under any definition of these defenses one principle remains constant: if there was a reasonable, legal alternative to violating the law, “a chance both to refuse … However, the evidence clearly shows the Mustang was finally moved off the roadway without defendant being behind the steering wheel.

State v. Reece

54 N.C. App. 400 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Nov 3, 1981

It reasoned as follows: *403 The quoted portion of the charge in the present case is clearly erroneous. … The error identified herein would be harmless if we could rule that the evidence established the defendant’s intent to kill as a matter of law; however, the evidence as to the distance from which the shot was fired and as

Hensell v. Winslow

106 N.C. App. 285 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · May 19, 1992

. § l-15(c), clearly provides that malpractice suits regarding foreign bodies must be filed within “one year after discovery.” … “Summary judgment may be granted when the movant establishes a complete defense.” Schneider v. Brunk, 72 N.C. App. 560, 564 , 324 S.E.2d 922, 925 (1985) (citation omitted).

Smith v. Wilkins

75 N.C. App. 483 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jul 2, 1985

Chateau X, 296 N.C. 251 , 250 S.E. 2d 603 (1979), unless the contrary clearly appears. State v. Lambert, 40 N.C. App. 418 , 252 S.E. 2d 855 (1979). … time limit arbitrarily set by North Carolina; rather, a person with a revoked license has only to meet the requirements to lift the revocation in the state where the license is revoked, whatever they may be, in order to qualify

Marley v. Graper

135 N.C. App. 423 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Nov 2, 1999

A judge is not required to recite an unvarying mantra every time an expert witness is qualified. … Stat. § 90-21.12 (1997) sets out the standard of proof necessary to establish medical malpractice: In any action for damages for personal injury or death arising out of the furnishing or the failure to furnish professional

ADAMS-MILLIS CORPORATION v. Town of Kernersville

6 N.C. App. 78 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Sep 17, 1969

Commercial and industrial establishments receive pickup service as required. … We note that the evidence here was that had Area 3 and Area 4 been consolidated as one area, it still would have qualified for annexation.

State v. Simmons

66 N.C. App. 402 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Feb 7, 1984

The record reveals that the witness was properly qualified as an expert in the identification of controlled substances. … Because the State had offered substantial evidence on this point, the motion to strike was clearly overbroad, and the court’s action proper.

State v. Lang

106 N.C. App. 695 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jul 7, 1992

Defendant argues that at most he is guilty of breach of contract which does not establish the intent to defraud. Cronin, 299 N.C. at 229 , 262 S.E.2d at 277 . We disagree. … The Rule clearly applies in this case. Further, defendant made no objection upon the document’s admission on the grounds of hearsay.

Fallis v. Watauga Medical Center, Inc.

132 N.C. App. 43 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jan 19, 1999

Therefore, unless the [trial court’s] ruling is clearly erroneous so as to amount to a manifest abuse of discretion, it will not be disturbed on appeal. Id. … Plaintiffs respond by pointing to the portion of the statute providing that information, documents, or records otherwise available are not immune from discovery or use in a civil action merely because they were presented

Stark v. N.C. Department of Environment & Natural Resources

224 N.C. App. 491 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Dec 18, 2012

As long as study, experience, or both makes the witness better qualified than the jury to draw appropriate inferences from the facts, he may be qualified as an expert.” Love, 100 N.C. … Petitioners’ remaining argument as to criterion seven is likewise without merit, as the record clearly discloses no prior mining violations by Harrison that resulted in any of the measures detailed under that criterion.

Day v. Brant

205 N.C. App. 348 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jul 20, 2010

Defendants, however, contend that plaintiffs did not properly establish that Dr. Mele was qualified to provide expert testimony on the applicable standard of care. … Mele was qualified to testify as to the applicable standard of care. Since defendants have not disputed that Dr.

Abernethy v. Town of Boone Board of Adjustment

109 N.C. App. 459 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Apr 6, 1993

Clearly, all the requisite elements for laches are present in this case. … If the two years and twenty-two days in Taylor was unreasonable, then four years is clearly unreasonable as well.

Buck v. Procter & Gamble Manufacturing Co.

52 N.C. App. 88 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · May 19, 1981

Clearly, it is not the function of any appellate court to retry the facts found by the Commission or weigh the evidence received by it and decide anew the issue of compen-sability of an employee’s claim. Inscoe v. … Timmons further qualified what he meant by "speculation” in his very next sentence: “I think that’s speculation on the basis that this is answering a hypothetical question.” 5 .

State v. Wall

141 N.C. App. 529 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Dec 29, 2000

Defendant argued that it was unclear, when viewing the seal, who certified the record or whether that person was qualified to certify the record. … The statute at issue in the instant case, section 14-7.4, clearly indicates that the provision is permissive, not mandatory, in that it provides a prior conviction “may” be proven by stipulation or a certified copy of a record

Croom v. Humphrey

175 N.C. App. 765 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Feb 7, 2006

The evidence at trial established that Humphrey crossed the yellow markings on the center of the road in order that he might pass Croom. … The General Assembly has neither provided a definition of the word "centerline" nor supplied qualifying examples.

Pressley v. Southwestern Freight Lines

144 N.C. App. 342 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jun 19, 2001

because the plaintiff was able to show that “the risk to which he was subjected by his employment was not the same as that of the public in the endemic area inasmuch as the great majority of the inhabitants there possessed an immunity … Second, a liberal construction should not “extend beyond the clearly expressed language of those provisions, and our courts may not enlarge the ordinary meaning of the terms used by the legislature or engage in any method