Case law

State v. Hollingsworth

78 N.C. App. 578 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Dec 31, 1985

Although the findings made after the voir dire examination do not clearly establish the basis for overruling defendant’s objections to the admission of these statements, it appears that the trial court allowed the 11 May … The commentary to this rule recognizes that such statements are usually trustworthy because of the patient’s motivation to be truthful, but the statements as to fault would not ordinarily qualify under this exception.

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.

In Re Protest of Atchison

192 N.C. App. 708 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Sep 16, 2008

Here, in the Clayton Town Council election, eighteen unqualified voters were allowed to vote and two qualified voters were denied the opportunity. … clearly expressed or arises by necessay implication from the terms of the legislation.”

Long v. Currituck Cnty.

248 N.C. App. 55 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jun 21, 2016

To qualify as a Single Family Dwelling, a project must fulfill each element of the definition, including both structural and functional provisions. … In the definition of Single Family Dwelling, the context does clearly indicate otherwise.

State v. Cox

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Feb 20, 2024

We have distinguished between cases in which the defendant is herself qualified as an expert in the jury’s presence, Galloway v. … Finally, Dagenhart’s testimony clearly fits the facts of the case.

Strickland v. Jackson

23 N.C. App. 603 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Nov 20, 1974

well settled in North Carolina that “ [o] rdinarily, a party’s financial ability to respond in damages, or to pay an alleged debt, is totally irrelevant to the issue of liability; and the admission of evidence tending to establish … It is well settled that failure to lodge a specific objection that a witness is not qualified as an expert is waived if not made in apt time. 1 Stansbury, North Carolina Evidence, § 133 (Brandis Revision, 1973).

Inland American Winston Hotels, Inc. v. Crockett

212 N.C. App. 349 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jun 7, 2011

Fry “would qualify as solicitation.” … In fact, the record clearly shows that Mr. West approached defendant Winston several times for employment and that defendant Winston refused to discuss employment until after Mr.

Pasour v. Pierce

76 N.C. App. 364 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Aug 20, 1985

Whether a plaintiff is contributorily negligent as a matter of law and before a motion for directed verdict may be granted, plaintiffs evidence must establish plaintiffs negligence so clearly that reasonable *370 minds may … not differ or so clearly that no other reasonable inferences may be drawn therefrom.

State v. Bagley

39 N.C. App. 328 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jan 2, 1979

The well-established exceptions to the rule stem from the test of logical relevancy. … Portions of the writing clearly were not “within the personal knowledge of [Officer Bryant],” id. at 513, and constituted inadmissible hearsay.

Radford v. Keith

160 N.C. App. 41 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Aug 19, 2003

Plaintiff did not testify, or offer the testimony of any qualified witness, that either the terms or amount of the Note and Deed of Trust were unreasonable. … This fact clearly establishes that defendants’ attempt to collect a fair price for the home they built was related to the contract between the parties. See generally Chemical Co. v. Rivenbark, 45 N.C.

State ex rel. Cobey v. Ballard

110 N.C. App. 486 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jun 1, 1993

Defendant asserts that the trial court erred in granting plaintiff’s motion to deny defendants’ request for a jury trial because the case at bar should be characterized as an action in nuisance, thus qualifying as a cause … The very complex and comprehensive set of regulatory requirements and controls established under the pertinent provisions of Chapter 143 of the General Statutes are clearly distinguishable from the parameters of a private

LSB Financial Services, Inc. v. Harrison

144 N.C. App. 542 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jul 3, 2001

Plaintiff did partner with a NASD member, Liberty Securities Corporation (“Liberty”) in 1996, and as such, qualified employees of plaintiff were allowed to engage in securities brokering. … While plaintiff was not allowed to become a NASD member, the dual employees were required to become NASD members in order to qualify for employment as securities brokers.

First Union National Bank v. Moss

32 N.C. App. 499 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Mar 16, 1977

Only where there is ambiguity or uncertainty is it proper for the court to take into consideration the established rules or canons for the construction of wills. Rhoads v. … As used in a will, “any” may have one of several meanings according to the subject which it qualifies and should be construed in context with other words used in the bequest.

Edwards v. Strata Solar, LLC

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Dec 17, 2025

As such, these allegations are insufficient as a matter of law to establish a qualifying disability under § 168A-3(7). … Clearly, a claim that defendant discharged plaintiff because of sex discrimination falls squarely within the text of the public policy identified by the General Assembly.

Enoch v. Inman

164 N.C. App. 415 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jun 1, 2004

Like the Fourth Circuit in Keller , we believe that this legislative history — in which Congress expressly declined to adopt an exclusivity provision so as to preserve rights under §§ 1981 and 1983— “clearly indicates” that … The parties have not addressed any immunity defenses, whether defendant DSS is a state or local governmental entity, or whether DSS is a “person” under § 1983.

RME Mgmt., LLC v. Chapel H.O.M. Assocs.

251 N.C. App. 562 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jan 17, 2017

Although clearly not controlling, we find the reasoning in Roseborough compelling, and we apply it to the circumstances of this case. … Such qualifying language is absent from the lease in the instant case.

Multiple v. North Carolina Department of Health & Human Services

176 N.C. App. 278 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Mar 7, 2006

We are not free to employ a common law rule to reinstate sovereign immunity when the State has both waived that immunity and specifically assumed a duty to jail inmates. … The State did not waive its sovereign immunity or place such activities outside the public duty doctrine.

Treadway v. Diez

209 N.C. App. 152 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jan 4, 2011

In contrast, no provision is made for the establishment of a “Sheriffs Department” as a distinct legal entity with the capacity to be sued. … Here, plaintiffs clearly contemplated substituting the Sheriff for the Sheriff’s Department as the appropriate party-defendant by denominating the motions as motions to “amend/substitute.”

Halifax Regional Medical Center, Inc. v. Brown

228 N.C. App. 43 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jun 18, 2013

Further, the terms of the agreement make it clear that defendant was not recruited to establish a practice in Roanoke Rapids for any money-making reasons, but rather, to remedy a “lack of qualified physicians specializing … Counsel for Smith Church argued that “paragraph 12 ... clearly and unambiguously states that if there’s a disagreement between these two parties, Smith Church and Dr. Brown, that’s to be resolved by arbitration.”

Meherrin Tribe v. North Carolina State Commission of Indian Affairs

219 N.C. App. 558 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Apr 3, 2012

While indigenous tribes may enjoy sovereign immunity over some disputes, the predicate facts which would present a sovereign immunity defense are not present here. … The Commission was established by N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143B-404 and is “administered under the direction and supervision of the Department of Administration].]” N.C. Gen.