Case law

Rabon v. Hopkins

208 N.C. App. 351 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Dec 7, 2010

In this case, there can be no doubt that Hines was better qualified than the jury such that the trial court correctly concluded that Hines was qualified to explain to the jury about the attachment mechanism. … expert on North Carolina motor vehicle law, and because Hines’ testimony on this subject involved simply reading to the jury sections of the North Carolina commercial drivers manual, we conclude that this testimony was clearly

Crocker v. Roethling

184 N.C. App. 377 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jul 3, 2007

Elliott's knowledge of Goldsboro, North Carolina, and the medical facilities located there, was sufficient to qualify Dr. Elliott to testify to the relevant standard of care. In Steffes this Court held that Dr. … Roethling clearly states that the Zavanelli maneuver is an extremely desperate maneuver and was not indicated during the delivery of Reagan. Thus, Dr.

May Ex Rel. May v. Mitchell

9 N.C. App. 298 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Aug 26, 1970

And unless plaintiff’s own evidence so clearly establishes his contributory negligence as one of the proximate causes of his injury that no other reasonable inference may be drawn therefrom, the issue of contributory negligence … Perkins, a farm implement dealer in Reidsville, was properly qualified as an expert in the operation of tractors. He claimed extensive experience with the type of Farmall tractor owned by defendant.

Boileau v. Seagrave

193 N.C. App. 454 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Oct 21, 2008

Then, in instructing the jury on qualified privilege, the trial court explained that "statements which would otherwise support a defamation action may be protected by a qualified privilege. … The trial courts's combined instruction clearly assigned Defendant the initial burden of proving the elements of libel per se, and then assigned Plaintiff the subsequent burden of proving the elements of a qualified privilege

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.”

State v. Jeffries

55 N.C. App. 269 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jan 5, 1982

Furthermore, the videotape shown to the jury must be clear, allowing the jurors to observe clearly the demeanor of the witness. … While it is the established rule in North Carolina that the erroneous submission of a lesser-included offense not supported by the evidence is not prejudicial error, State v.

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.”

State v. Edwards

85 N.C. App. 145 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Apr 7, 1987

This information is clearly sufficient to find the existence of probable cause to search defendants’ residence. … Here, the evidence was sufficient to support the finding by the trial court that the witness was qualified to express an opinion on the identification of the “green vegetable matter” seized at defendants’ home.

Stanback v. Stanback

37 N.C. App. 324 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Aug 1, 1978

The “contemplation of the parties” rule was established in the English case of Hadley v. Baxendale, 9 Exch. 341, 156 Eng. … Some courts qualify the rule by holding that such damages are recoverable when the breach amounts in substance to a willful or independent tort or is accompanied by physical injury. . . .

Goodman v. Living Centers—Southeast, Inc.

234 N.C. App. 330 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jun 17, 2014

medical care did not comply with the applicable standard of care, and the motion is filed with the complaint; or (3) The pleading alleges facts establishing … Based on prevailing case law, we hold that defendant’s acts or failure to act clearly involved the exercise of manual dexterity as opposed to the rendering of any specialized knowledge or skill.

Smith v. Pass

95 N.C. App. 243 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Sep 5, 1989

They contend that there was no competent medical testimony establishing a causal connection between the accident and a fracture of plaintiff’s thoracic vertebrae diagnosed by Bruch approximately one month after the accident … A directed verdict on the ground of contributory negligence is proper only where the defense is so clearly established that no other reasonable inference can be drawn. Daughtry v.

In Re the Consolidated Appeals of Certain Timber Companies From the Denial of Use Value Assessment & Taxation by Certain Counties

98 N.C. App. 412 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · May 15, 1990

Appellants’ property qualifies under all but one criteria of the statute in question for the present use taxation classification. … While this constitutional grant of authority establishes the general rule that taxes must be applied uniformly, it “does not prohibit reasonable flexibility and variety appropriate to reasonable schemes of State taxation.

Rowan County Board of Education v. United States Gypsum Co.

87 N.C. App. 106 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Sep 15, 1987

The statute of limitations, if properly pled and if all the facts with reference thereto are admitted or established, may act as an affirmative defense, barring plaintiffs claims and entitling defendant to summary judgment … Defendant contends that the North Carolina Legislature abrogated nullum tempus occurrit regi and ended the State’s immunity by enacting what is now N.C.G.S. § 1-30.

Williams v. Randolph

94 N.C. App. 413 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jul 5, 1989

As attorney for the estate, defendant began proceedings to qualify plaintiff as administratrix, c.t.a. and to collect on the Nationwide policy. … The evidence, including plaintiff’s evidence, clearly supported defendant’s entitlement to a reasonable legal fee for services rendered; therefore, whether plaintiff agreed to the fee was not an issue, nor was whether she

Ronald G. Hinson Electric, Inc. v. Union County Board of Education

125 N.C. App. 373 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Feb 18, 1997

Furthermore, it is the responsibility of each party to ensure the record on appeal clearly sets forth evidence favorable to that party’s position. Produce Corp. v. Covington Diesel, 21 N.C. … Electric Membership Corp., 275 N.C. 250, 260 , 166 S.E.2d 663, 670 (1969) (“[i]t is a well established principle of statutory construction that a section of a statute dealing with a specific situation controls, with respect

Robinson v. GGNSC Holdings, LLC

823 S.E.2d 171 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Feb 19, 2019

Second, she argues that the trial court should not have dismissed her amended complaint, contending that it established a cause of action for ordinary negligence, not medical malpractice. … Specifically, Plaintiff argues that the trial court erred in holding that her claim qualified as a suit for medical malpractice, rather than ordinary negligence.

Harper v. Vohra Wound Physicians of NY

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Mar 17, 2020

Namely, he contends the clause “and not be under current exclusion, debarment or sanction by any state or federal health care program . . . ” qualifies the preceding requirement that he be qualified to participate—and shall … Burnette, 297 N.C. 524, 536, 256 S.E.2d 388, 395 (1979) (“[I]t is proper to direct verdict for the party with the burden of proof if the evidence so clearly establishes the fact in issue that no reasonable inferences to

State v. Howard

158 N.C. App. 226 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jun 3, 2003

The General Assembly established a statutory scheme to protect young females from older males. … Stat. § 14-27 .7A clearly set out that the offense is classified as a class B1 felony as well as the elements which constitute the offense.

Stanford v. Owens

46 N.C. App. 388 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · May 6, 1980

A complaint may be dismissed on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion if it is clearly without merit. … We think that plaintiffs’ complaint clearly answers this question in the negative.

In Re Sdh

654 S.E.2d 83 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Dec 18, 2007

Thus, the trial court did not have subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to § 50A-201 because North Carolina did not qualify as the home state for either child. … "This would ordinarily create a presumption for the issuance of the termination order once a termination ground has been established." Id.