Case law

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

McCaskill v. Department of State Treasurer

204 N.C. App. 373 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jun 15, 2010

Despite the Board’s decision to reject Finding of Fact No. 39, the Board clearly confirmed the ALJ’s determination that Mr. … As a result, Petitioner is only eligible for long-term disability benefits to the extent that he qualifies for them under otherwise applicable law.

In re: C.B., D.B.

245 N.C. App. 65 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jan 19, 2016

On the contrary, [w]illfulness is established when the respondent had the ability to show reasonable progress, but was unwilling to make the effort. … Opinion of the Court underlying the petition to terminate Mother’s parental rights—was clearly admissible under the rule announced in U.S. Leasing Corp.

Virginia Electric & Power Co. v. Tillett

80 N.C. App. 383 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · May 6, 1986

The court may grant summary judgment if the movant conclusively establishes every element of its claim or, as appears to have been attempted here, conclusively establishes a complete defense or legal bar to the non-movant … The relationship between these conflicting claims does not clearly appear from the face of this record.

Coffman v. Roberson

153 N.C. App. 618 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Nov 5, 2002

Tonn and Warren should have been excluded because they were “speculative” and insufficient to establish damages. … At bar, the record clearly reflects, through the sworn affidavit of plaintiffs’ attorney, that all of the expert witnesses testified at trial pursuant to a subpoena.

N.C. Dep't of Pub. Safety v. Ledford

247 N.C. App. 266 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · May 3, 2016

As our Supreme Court observed in Gibson, “[t]he burden of establishing a prima facie case of discrimination is not onerous” and “may be established in various ways,” including a showing of dissimilar treatment of the claimant … establishes that Ledford’s salary was in the legally permissible range.

Cherry v. Harrell

84 N.C. App. 598 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Mar 17, 1987

Appert’s expert opinion was crucial for plaintiff since our courts have long held the cause of back injuries can only be established by expert medical testimony. E.g., Gillikin v. … Appert’s testimony was not expressly qualified by the Lockwood formula of “reasonable probability.” Instead, Dr.

Cobb v. Pennsylvania Life Insurance

215 N.C. App. 268 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Sep 6, 2011

perform or became qualified to perform with “education, training or experience.” … Cobb purchased an “any occupation” insurance policy that clearly defined the term “totally disabled.”

In re: M.S.

785 S.E.2d 590 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Apr 19, 2016

In the present case, J.C. clearly is not the juvenile, a court-appointed guardian ad litem, a county department of social services, or a party who sought unsuccessfully for termination of parental rights. … appeal from an order of adjudication and disposition, does not authorize an appeal by a stepparent in the absence of record evidence that the stepparent has become the child’s parent through adoption or is otherwise qualified

Howerton v. Arai Helmet, Ltd.

158 N.C. App. 316 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jun 17, 2003

Hooper was not qualified to offer an expert opinion on causation because Mr. … Howerton clearly demonstrates that he did not, in fact, detrimentally rely on the assumed misrepresentation.

Hoke County Board of Education v. State

198 N.C. App. 274 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jul 21, 2009

A substantial right is one which will clearly be lost or irremediably adversely affected if the order is not reviewable before final judgment. … The burden is on the appealing party to establish that a substantial right will be affected. Turner v. Norfolk S. Corp., 137 N.C.

Davenport v. Central Carolina Bank

161 N.C. App. 666 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Dec 16, 2003

Rightsell, established an estate plan by executing various testamentary documents. The Rightsells were plaintiff’s great-aunt and great-uncle. … After Louise Rightsell’s death oh 30 January 1998, defendant promptly qualified as executor of her estate and proceeded to administer Louise Rightsell’s estate according to the terms and provisions of her will.

State v. Goblet

173 N.C. App. 112 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Sep 6, 2005

to determine whether this was error *118 as his testimony did not need to qualify under an exception to the hearsay rule to be admissible. … The control of the arguments of counsel largely is left up to the discretion of the trial court and the propriety of counsel’s remarks generally will not be reviewed unless the remarks are extreme or clearly intended to prejudice

In re: T.D.N.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Dec 6, 2022

He was not permitted to be placed in a daycare due to Mother’s objections to immunizations for religious reasons. … Mother, at this time, was able to visit with Todd for a minimum of one hour per week and remained opposed to immunizing him.

In Re Appeal of Totsland Preschool, Inc.

180 N.C. App. 160 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Nov 7, 2006

Totsland’s status as a charitable entity is clearly established by the fact that it incorporated under our state’s Non-Profit Corporation Act, by filing its Articles of Incorporation with the Secretary of State on 18 September … The day care services are offered at significantly reduced rate to the parents, all of whom qualify for government subsidies.

Matter of Nakell

104 N.C. App. 638 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Dec 17, 1991

We held that “[t]he-word ‘substantially’ qualifies the word ‘contemporaneously’ and clearly does not require that the contempt proceedings immediately follow the misconduct.” … Clearly under the circumstances of the case, we find no conceivable error or prejudice to Nakell.

State v. Tripp

74 N.C. App. 680 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · May 21, 1985

We agree with the State’s contention that the above principles should apply to all persons properly qualified in court as an expert in a particular field. Accord State v. … The record clearly shows that Agent Casale received the substance purchased from the defendant on 13 April 1983.

In re Q.V.

164 N.C. App. 737 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jun 15, 2004

that the award would be clearly inappropriate. … that the award would be clearly inappropriate.”

Barrett, Robert & Woods, Inc. v. Armi

59 N.C. App. 134 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Oct 19, 1982

Defendant disagrees with the findings regarding plaintiffs stability during the construction period, but they are clearly supported by the evidence. … Article I of Chapter 87 clearly contemplates that a contractor should be licensed at the time of contracting and during the construction period.

In re: T.D.N.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Dec 6, 2022

He was not permitted to be placed in a daycare due to Mother’s objections to immunizations for religious reasons. … Mother, at this time, was able to visit with Todd for a minimum of one hour per week and remained opposed to immunizing him.