Case law

Brooks v. Southern National Corp.

131 N.C. App. 80 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Oct 6, 1998

Plaintiffs argument is clearly speculative and is thus overruled. *86 III. Plaintiff next argues the administrative remedy provided in N.C. Gen. Stat. § 150B is not an “exclusive” remedy. … This is especially true where a statute establishes, as here, a procedure whereby matters of regulation and control are first addressed by commissions or agencies particularly qualified for the purpose.

State v. Golder

257 N.C. App. 803 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Feb 6, 2018

It is sufficient to clearly identify the crime being charged, apprise Defendant of this charge against him allowing preparation for trial, and preclude the State from putting Defendant in jeopardy more than once for the … contends in his brief that this indictment was fatally defective based upon the fact that it failed to specify the exact manner in which he allegedly violated Section 58-71-40, Defendant has failed to cite any authority establishing

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.

State v. Marshall

92 N.C. App. 398 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Dec 30, 1988

The reference in the answer to “he had been in prison for rape before” was clearly in reference to the defendant. However, the defendant did not object or move to strike the answer. … The burden of establishing that the motion to suppress is timely filed is on the defendant. Id. at 624-25 , 268 S.E. 2d at 513-14 .

State v. Grover

142 N.C. App. 411 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Mar 20, 2001

Likewise, the record clearly reflects that Ms. Rowe's expert opinion was solely based on the disclosures made to her by M-or disclosures made by M to someone else at the Center. … The record reveals the trial court properly determined a sufficient foundation had been established to allow the evidence from Ms. Arnts, Ms. Rowe and the report of the Center.

Lackey v. Bressler

86 N.C. App. 486 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Aug 4, 1987

) and concluded that: [t]he legislature’s adoption of an outer limit or repose of four years from the last act of the defendant giving rise to the cause of action for non-apparent injuries contained in G.S. 145(c) . . . clearly … [has] the effect of granting the defendant an immunity to actions for malpractice after the applicable period of time has elapsed. 312 N.C. at 633 , 325 S.E. 2d at 475 .

State v. Morrison

84 N.C. App. 41 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jan 20, 1987

However, our courts have not yet addressed the question of when a witness is qualified to give such an opinion. … Her testimony that he tried to penetrate her from above is clearly substantial evidence of “an overt act . . . which goes beyond mere preparation.”

Hall v. U.S. Xpress, Inc.

256 N.C. App. 635 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Dec 5, 2017

In Clark, this Court held that “the record clearly shows that [the] defendants’ liability had not otherwise been established under the Act because [the] defendants had not been held liable for [the] plaintiff’s injuries … We conclude that Espinosa is functionally indistinguishable from the present case and that our jurisprudence clearly establishes both that (1) an employer may be required to pay for the expense of providing handicapped

In Re the Appeal of Springmoor, Inc.

125 N.C. App. 184 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jan 21, 1997

facilities; (iv) the charter of which provides that in the event of dissolution, its assets will revert or be conveyed to an entity organized exclusively for charitable, educational, scientific, or religious purposes, and which qualifies … By enacting G.S. 105-275(32), the General Assembly clearly intended “to promote communities for the elderly without giving a tax windfall to all residential property owners.” Id.

State v. Mason

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Oct 18, 2022

¶ 33 Moreover, Defendant has failed to establish that Investigator Henline’s opinion was “the product of reliable principles and methods.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 702(a)(2). … MASON 2022-NCCOA-684 Opinion of the Court cannot see and see clearly, folks, raise your hand. We’ll stop it.

Stein v. Hall

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jan 7, 2026

“The party moving for summary judgment bears the burden of establishing that there is no triable issue of material fact.” DeWitt v. … The separation of powers clause plainly and clearly does not allow the General Assembly to take this much control over the execution of the laws from the Governor and lodge it

Development Associates, Inc. v. Wake County Board of Adjustment

48 N.C. App. 541 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Sep 2, 1980

In his second and third assignments of error, respondent calls into question the conclusions of the trial court that the Wake County ordinance is invalid and that his dog-breeding operation does not qualify for the farm exemption … Chapter 67 of the General Statutes, entitled “Dogs”, deals with dogs so as clearly to distinguish them from livestock.

Sandhill Amusements v. State

219 N.C. App. 362 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Mar 6, 2012

When plaintiffs' customers make a qualifying purchase of plaintiffs' products, they receive one or more sweepstakes entries. … "It is a basic principle of due process that an enactment is void for vagueness if its prohibitions are not clearly defined." Grayned v.

Kelly v. State of N.C.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Oct 18, 2022

¶ 44 Thus, Defendants and Intervenors have not established any substantial right that would be lost absent immediate appeal. … These statutes also clearly place these initial determinations of whether to refer a case or not solely in the hands of the trial court— not this Court.

Matthews v. Watkins

91 N.C. App. 640 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Nov 1, 1988

Thus, the amount paid clearly exceeded the maximum executor's commission of five percent. … This testimony established that respondent had obtained verbal authorization from the clerk to pay the amounts shown in the account.

Rice v. Rice

159 N.C. App. 487 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Aug 5, 2003

Our case law has further defined a vested interest as "a right which is otherwise secured, established, and immune from further legal metamorphosis," Gardner v. … In the present case, the court's evaluation of the potential rental income, like its evaluation of many other facts and circumstances, is clearly permissible.

In RE McLAMB

721 S.E.2d 285 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Feb 7, 2012

Respondent argues that the County's present-use value meets the appraisal standards established by N.C. … However, as the above statutes and the portions of the manual clearly note, the manual merely gives "recommendations" to counties regarding their present-use valuation.

Cameron v. Merisel Properties, Inc.

187 N.C. App. 40 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Nov 6, 2007

Tulis, who was qualified as an expert in mold science and assessment, control, and remediation of mold in indoor environments. Dr. … Clearly, his opinion was based on far more than speculation.

McKinney v. Greater Gethsemane African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church of Charlotte, N.C., Inc.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jul 1, 2014

Stat. § 1- 539.10(b) (2013) (qualified immunity is waived where an organization secures liability insurance). However, if the work to be performed . . . … Although the issue of contributory negligence is “rarely appropriate for summary judgment,” summary judgment is appropriate “where the evidence establishes a plaintiff’s negligence so clearly that

Thomas v. North Carolina Department of Human Resources

124 N.C. App. 698 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Dec 17, 1996

The specific issue in the case at bar is clearly resolved by the statute. … ‘are a matter of statutory entitlement for *704 persons qualified to receive them.’ ” Atkins v. Parker, 472 U.S. 115, 128 , 86 L. Ed. 2d 81, 92 (1985) (quoting Goldberg, 397 U.S. at 262 , 25 L. Ed. 2d at 295 ).