Case law

Land v. VILLAGE OF WESLEY CHAPEL

206 N.C. App. 123 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Aug 3, 2010

Land was required to obtain a special use permit in order to establish his shooting range. We disagree. … Unless an ordinance clearly prohibits a particular land use, that land use is allowed. This includes shooting ranges.

Van Reypen Associates, Inc. v. Teeter

175 N.C. App. 535 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jan 17, 2006

The jury is just as well qualified as the witness to determine what inferences the facts will permit or require. Shaw v. Sylvester, 253 N.C. 176, 180 , 116 S.E.2d 351, 355 (1960). … Evid. 702, which allows opinion evidence of a qualified expert that will ‘assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue.’ ” 2 Kenneth S.

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.

Huntley v. Howard Lisk Co., Inc.

154 N.C. App. 698 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Dec 17, 2002

It is well-established that our Workers’ Compensation Act [the Act], N.C.G.S. §§ 97-1 to -200 (2001), applies only when an employer-employee relationship exists. Hicks v. … “The movant must clearly demonstrate the lack of any triable issue of fact and entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.” Marcus Bros. Textiles, Inc. v.

State v. Killian

250 N.C. App. 443 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Nov 15, 2016

Admission of Ray’s testimony about the results of Killian’s HGN test was clearly erroneous. … KILLIAN Opinion of the Court the witness is so qualified and proper foundation is established, the witness may give expert testimony as to the

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 Accutane Litigation

233 N.C. App. 319 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Apr 1, 2014

“A substantial right is ‘one which will clearly be lost or irremediably adversely affected if the order is not reviewable before final judgment.’ . . . … Kappelman’s contention that he qualifies as a “journalist,” to refuse to divulge information that is protected by journalistic privilege. Dr.

Young v. KIMBERLY-CLARK CORP.

219 N.C. App. 172 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Feb 21, 2012

Although not a privilege, the exception is a “qualified immunity” and extends to all materials prepared “in anticipation of litigation or for trial by or for another party or by or for that other party’s consultant, surety … This statute is clearly inapplicable in this situation, as plaintiff is the person who has been directed to disclose her own income tax returns. N.C. Gen.

Vigus v. Milton A. Latta & Sons Dairy Farms, Inc.

197 N.C. App. 233 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · May 19, 2009

Upon review, the contract clearly states that plaintiffs requested a "limited visual inspection" of the structure. … In fact, the TMLS sheet clearly stated that the "Information deemed RELIABLE but not GUARANTEED."

Preston v. Preston

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Apr 5, 2022

Qualified Personnel, Inc., 294 N.C. 200, 207, 240 S.E.2d 338, 343 (1978) (citations omitted). … excessive fee or charge or collect a clearly excessive amount for expenses.

STATE EX REL. BANKING COMMISSION v. Weiss

174 N.C. App. 78 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Oct 18, 2005

Laws ch. 393, § 5(b) states: (b) Any qualified person who files, within 90 days after this act becomes effective, a sworn application with the Commissioner stating that he or she has met the definition of a qualified person … “Qualified person” is defined in N.C. Gen.

Azige v. Holy Trinity Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahdo Church

249 N.C. App. 236 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Sep 6, 2016

The prohibition on judicial cognizance of ecclesiastical disputes is founded upon both establishment and free exercise clause concerns. … Plaintiffs rely primarily upon Johnson in arguing that this case does not on the total number of registered members who are qualified to vote. Defendants do not count plaintiffs as registered members.

State v. Peterson

228 N.C. App. 339 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jul 16, 2013

Additionally, the record clearly establishes that defendant attempted to procure this testimony at trial. Over 600 pages of the trial transcript are devoted to Agent Deaver’s voir dire at trial. … During voir dire, defendant specifically argued to Judge Hudson that he did not believe that Agent Deaver was qualified to give opinions concerning *346 blood spatter.

Goetz v. NC DEPT. OF HEALTH & HUMAN SVCS.

692 S.E.2d 395 · 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.

Simons v. Georgiade

55 N.C. App. 483 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Feb 2, 1982

Plaintiff offered further “qualifying questions” which the trial judge deemed to relate back to the first hypothetical question. … Under the circumstances of the case sub judice, we find that the standard of care was adequately established. *493 G.S. 90-21.12 codified the standard of health care necessary for the trier of the facts to establish a defendant

State v. Bennett

262 N.C. App. 89 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Oct 16, 2018

determination, we are mindful that trial courts, given their experience in supervising voir dire and their ability to observe the prosecutor’s questions and demeanor firsthand, are well qualified … This Court “must uphold the trial court's findings unless they are ‘clearly erroneous.’”

Murrow v. Daniels

85 N.C. App. 401 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · May 5, 1987

In substance, defendants’ contentions are that as a matter of law the evidence presented failed to establish their negligence and established plaintiffs contributory negligence; that they were prejudiced by much inadmissible … “Gross negligence” clearly has legal significance and that characterization by the witness should not have been permitted.

Delgado v. Petruk

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Oct 6, 2015

“According to well-established North Carolina law, governmental immunity is an immunity from suit rather than a -7-  DELGADO V. … The Wallace Court distinguished Slade, however, stating, “Slade involved sovereign immunity, which is a common law theory or defense established by [the] Court to protect the sovereign or the State and its agents from suit

Butler & Sidbury, Inc. v. Green Street Baptist Church

90 N.C. App. 65 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · May 3, 1988

Plaintiff argues that the expert was not qualified to give such an opinion and that the opinion lacked a proper foundation. … Erlin’s qualifications were adequate because he was clearly better qualified than the jury to draw appropriate inferences from the facts. See State v. Young, 312 N.C. 669, 679 , 325 S.E. 2d 181, 187 (1985).

In re: Hughes

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jun 6, 2017

The $10 million appropriated to cover compensation for the victims would clearly not result in compensation approaching $50,000.00 if even 1,500 victims were verified as claimants according to the method of payment established … This option was clearly considered and rejected by the General Assembly.