Case law

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).

Mitchell v. Nationwide Insurance

110 N.C. App. 16 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · May 4, 1993

We note that our courts have clearly established that pursuant to the language of N.C.G.S. § 20-279.21(b)(3), a Class I insured, albeit a non-owner family member, living in the household of a policy holder, may recover under … Therefore, as a Class I insured, plaintiff “qualifies” for recovery under the Baker policy.

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.

State v. Applewhite

190 N.C. App. 132 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · May 6, 2008

In order to challenge Agent Matthews’s testimony on appeal, counsel for defendant should have made a special request to have Agent Matthews qualified as an expert. See id. … “Whether to allow a leading question on direct examination clearly falls within the discretion of the trial court.” State v. York, 347 N.C. 79, 90 , 489 S.E.2d 380, 386-87 (1997) (citation omitted).

Turlington v. McLeod

89 N.C. App. 515 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Apr 5, 1988

Contrary to appellant’s argument, most of which is devoted to times covered by the earlier proceeding, petitioner’s evidence at this trial clearly supports the allegation that his land is now without adequate access to a … But respondent’s other contention, that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to establish that petitioner is using his land for a purpose that entitles him to a cartway, is well taken.

Ferguson v. Ferguson

55 N.C. App. 341 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jan 5, 1982

To establish fraud the false representation must be of some material fact that is past or existing. … The pleadings suggest that plaintiff conveyed her land to defendants in order to qualify for governmental aid in the event she became ill.

State v. Culpepper

47 N.C. App. 633 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jul 15, 1980

Nevertheless, the question called for clearly irrelevant testimony. This assignment of error is not sustained. … in “not allowing the defendant, Trevor Gurganus, to testify that the defendants had purchased beer through another nightclub operated by defendants and used these beer purchases in the Boardwalk nightclub,” which was the establishment

State of N.C. v. Envtl. Working Grp.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Sep 17, 2024

costs are not inappropriately collected from non-solar customers, but from NEM customers; (4) credit customers “for any net monthly exports to the utility grid” at the same rates that the Companies pay to utility-scale qualifying … Opinion of the Court We hold that N.C.G.S. § 62-126.4 clearly and unambiguously requires the Commission to first investigate the costs and benefits of customer-sited generation and to then establish net metering

WACHOVIA BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, NA v. Morgan

176 S.E.2d 860 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Oct 21, 1970

There, plaintiffs sought to have terminated a trust established by a will of 1895. … It is clearly not, as found by the court, because of governmental and social programs and trends.

State v. Wright

52 N.C. App. 166 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jun 2, 1981

He therefore was better qualified to form an opinion on the subject than was the jury, despite the fact that he was never formally qualified as an expert. See 1 Stansbury, supra, § 133; Rubber Co. v. … It was established that brake fade would generally not occur under the circumstances described in the hypothetical question. Dr.

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

State v. McNeill

140 N.C. App. 450 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Nov 7, 2000

None of these factors, alone or in combination, may conclusively establish or discount the statement’s “circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness.” … It is defendant’s position that the immunity offered Mr. Stover was a bribe of a public official by the district attorney.

State v. McCord

140 N.C. App. 634 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Dec 5, 2000

First, a criminal defendant must establish a prima facie case of intentional discrimination by the prosecutor. … The trial court’s denial of Defendant’s Batson motion regarding Clemmons was, therefore, not clearly erroneous.

State Ex Rel. Utilities Commission v. TOWN OF KILL DEVIL HILLS

194 N.C. App. 561 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jan 6, 2009

The purpose of the doctrine is to ensure that “matters of regulation and control are first addressed by commissions or agencies particularly qualified for the purpose.” Id. (emphasis added). … In any event, in Dixon the Commission did not establish mandatory factors; rather, it simply addressed the six arguments that the complainants raised in that proceeding.

Hlasnick v. Federated Mutual Insurance

136 N.C. App. 320 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jan 18, 2000

RPM selected coverage in the amount of $500,000 for “any director, officer, partner or owner of the named insured” and his or her qualified family member, and coverage in the amount of $50,000 for any other qualified person … If no definition is given, non-technical words are to be given their meaning in ordinary speech, unless the context clearly indicates another meaning was intended.

State v. Bowen

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Apr 5, 2022

¶ 18 Any state statute that criminalizes speech “must be interpreted with the commands of the First Amendment clearly in mind.” Watts v. United States, 394 U.S. 705, 707, 89 S. … The holding in Watts established that the First Amendment “requires the [g]overnment to prove a true threat” exists when  STATE V.

Pinner v. Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co.

60 N.C. App. 257 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jan 4, 1983

This procedural matter does not alter the burden of proof, which plaintiff concedes was clearly placed on defendant in the jury instructions. … The witness’ testimony thus did not qualify the pole records for admission as business records.

Huffman v. Moore County

208 N.C. App. 471 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Dec 21, 2010

The record clearly supports the Commission’s determination that Dr. Staudenmeyer and Dr. … Winfield were qualified to testify concerning the causal relationship, if any, between Plaintiffs’ work in the CSB and their symptoms. Although Plaintiffs challenge Dr.

Long v. Fowler

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Aug 20, 2024

In my view, Plaintiff’s evidence, as well as contradictory statements by Defendants themselves, clearly create a genuine issue of material fact. … Price Waterhouse, LLP, 350 N.C. 214, 224, 513 S.E.2d 320, 327 (1999) (“Before summary judgment may be entered, it must be clearly established by the record before the trial court that there is a lack of any triable issue

State v. Covington

34 N.C. App. 457 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Nov 16, 1977

There is a well-established presumption in favor of the constitutionality of an act of the Legislature, Mitchell v. … Financing Authority, 273 N.C. 137 , 159 S.E. 2d 745 (1968); the courts will not declare a statute unconstitutional unless it is clearly so. Hobbs v. Moore County, 267 N.C. 665 , 149 S.E. 2d 1 (1966).