Case law

State v. Rushing

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Nov 5, 2019

The eye is clearly a -7-  STATE V. … However, her statement, “I actually have an orbital fracture,” does not clearly indicate that her eye impairment had lingered to the time of trial.

In Re Imprisonment of Long

25 N.C. App. 702 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · May 21, 1975

“This primary role of the parents in the upbringing of their children is now established beyond debate as an enduring American tradition.” Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 , 32 L.Ed. 2d 15 , 92 S.Ct. 1526 (1972). … Any person voluntarily seeking admission to a treatment facility must be examined and evaluated by a qualified physician of the facility within 24 hours of presenting himself for admission.

In re D.J.D.

171 N.C. App. 230 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jul 5, 2005

cocaine at birth, the history of domestic violence between the parents, the mother's admission of drug addiction, the refusal to enroll one child in school, excessive absenteeism by another child, and the failure to maintain immunizations … Respondent also contends the petitioner failed to prove that he was unable to establish a safe home. We disagree.

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. Moore

167 N.C. App. 495 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Dec 21, 2004

In making this argument, however, defendant disregards the way in which the Supreme Court qualified its holding in Cronic . … To make a Batson claim, a defendant must *500 establish a prima facie case of purposeful racial discrimination. Batson, 476 U.S. at 93 , 90 L. Ed. 2d at 85 .

Plummer v. Plummer

198 N.C. App. 538 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Aug 4, 2009

The legislature also clearly intended to vest trial courts with discretion in distributing marital property under N.C.G.S. 50-20 .... … “[T]he degree of specificity required in a court order pertaining to equitable distribution cannot be established with scientific precision.” Id. at 267 , 533 S.E.2d at 279 .

Cooke v. Cooke

185 N.C. App. 101 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Aug 7, 2007

On 10 May 2002, plaintiff moved for equitable distribution of “certain property which qualifies as marital property as defined by N.C.G.S. § 5-20 et seq.” … When “interpreting contract language, the presumption is that the parties intended what the language used clearly expresses, and the contract must be construed to mean what on its face it purports to mean.” Stewart v.

State v. Williams

38 N.C. App. 138 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Oct 3, 1978

This is a novel assertion, but it is clearly without merit. … But be that as it may the statement does not qualify as part of the res gestae.

In Re DSC

607 S.E.2d 43 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jan 18, 2005

Gen.Stat. § 7B-1111(a)(6), clearly placing the burden on the court to appoint a GAL by way of notice in the petition. … There was no qualifying or narrowing language in N.C. Gen.Stat. § 7B-1101 taken from N.C. Gen.Stat. § 7B-1111(a)(6), as is present in the current version. [3] N.C.

Leech v. State of N.C.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Oct 1, 2025

Further, “matters outside the pleading” includes “evidentiary materials used to establish facts.” Id. at 6, 871 S.E.2d at 695. … When a sufficient facial claim is clearly alleged, the trial court, in compliance with N.C. Gen.

Malloy v. Preslar

228 N.C. App. 183 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jul 2, 2013

Qualified Personnel, Inc., 294 N.C. 200, 208 , 240 S.E.2d 338, 343 (1978). … We further observed that: In our view, the foregoing authority clearly establishes that a landowner’s duty to keep property safe (1) does not extend to guarding against injuries caused by dangerous conditions located off

Raritan River Steel Co. v. Cherry, Bekaert & Holland

101 N.C. App. 1 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Dec 18, 1990

In January, 1982, defendants issued a qualified opinion concerning IMC’s financial statements, stating that IMC’s net worth as of 30 September 1981 was $6,964,475.00. … App. 688, 690 , 279 S.E.2d 894, 896 , aff'd, 304 N.C. 585 , 284 S.E.2d 518 (1981) (movant must clearly establish that no triable issue of fact exists and that movant “is entitled to judgment as a matter of law”).

State v. Galloway

145 N.C. App. 555 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Aug 21, 2001

Minor clearly identified the source of her information as the victim’s mother. Then, in her testimony, Dr. … Contrarily, the Hartness line, “establishes that if the trial court merely instructs the jury disjunctively as to various alternative acts which will establish an element of the offense, the requirement of unanimity is satisfied

State v. Anderson

215 N.C. App. 169 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Aug 16, 2011

A defendant must first clearly and unequivocally waive his right to counsel, and elect to proceed pro se. State v. Flowers, 347 N.C. 1, 17 , 489 S.E.2d 391, 400 (1997). … You got the right to hire an attorney of your own choosing and if you feel you cannot afford an attorney—I'll review an affidavit to see if you qualify.

Stilwell v. General Railway Services, Inc.

167 N.C. App. 291 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Dec 7, 2004

reasons set forth, we reverse the trial court’s grant of a directed verdict and order a new trial as we believe the issue of contributory negligence should have been submitted to the jury and that defendant did not fully establish … MILITARY CONTRACTOR DEFENSE At trial, defendant argued that as a military contractor, it was immune from suit.

Russell v. N.C. Department of Environment & Natural Resources

227 N.C. App. 306 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · May 21, 2013

Plaintiffs also alleged that Defendant had a duty of care to Plaintiffs under the special duty exception to the public duty doctrine and that Defendant had waived sovereign immunity. … It is well established that “[o]rdinarily, expert testimony is required to establish the standard of care” in professional negligence cases. Michael v. Huffman Oil Co., Inc., 190 N.C.

State v. Watlington

216 N.C. App. 388 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Oct 18, 2011

I know I’m not qualified to do this, but I trust in God, I trust in the system. I’ve been in the system before. I would just like to be heard on the cases and go from there. I think that’s the best thing I can do. … Even if we were to assume that the federal statute identified by the State in its brief is the correct statute, as noted by defendant, 18 U.S.C. 922(g) includes multiple subsections which establish several different firearm

Morehead v. Harris

4 N.C. App. 235 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Apr 2, 1969

He *237 died intestate on 3 May 1933 and his widow, Daisy Harris, qualified as administratrix of his estate on 31 May 1933 in the office of the clerk of Superior Court of Guilford County, and thereafter she acted in that … On the foregoing facts, which were established by the record on appeal upon the second appeal to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court held that when the widow, having only a life interest in the form of her dower right in

Handa v. Munn

182 N.C. App. 515 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Apr 3, 2007

App. 807, 809 , 513 S.E.2d 572, 573-74 (1999). “ ‘The moving party has the burden of establishing the lack of any triable issue,’ and ‘[a] 11 inferences of fact from the proof offered at the hearing must be looked at in the … Stat. § 90-21.13 ], a signed consent ... is presumed valid only if it ‘meets the foregoing standards,’ clearly those of subsection (a). The con *520 sent form itself is not conclusive.” Estrada v. Jaques, 70 N.C.

Ferris v. Peele

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Nov 5, 2025

“A substantial right is one which will clearly be lost or irremediably adversely affected if the order is not reviewable before final judgment.” McConnell v. McConnell, 151 N.C. … In the case sub judice, Defendants argue they are immune from suit because the allegedly defamatory statement was absolutely privileged and because they have statutory immunity from claims arising out of the Unfair and