Case law

In Re Hayden

96 N.C. App. 77 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Oct 17, 1989

Such testimony was clearly helpful to the court as factfinder and was properly admitted. We therefore overrule this assignment of error. … No accidental cause was established, and the child in fact stated that respondent burned her. The burns were serious, requiring prompt medical attention.

Lowe's of Fayetteville, Inc. v. Quigley

46 N.C. App. 770 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · May 20, 1980

Defendants clearly misperceive the burden of the party moving for summary judgment. First, a verified complaint may be treated as an affidavit if it meets the requirements of the rule for affidavits. Page v. … Second, it is not necessary to decide in this case whether or not plaintiff’s verified complaint qualifies as an affidavit.

Ford v. Jurgens

2021 NCBC 64 · North Carolina Business Court · Oct 5, 2021

Once the party invoking the doctrine establishes that the documents or things in question were prepared in anticipation of litigation, work product immunity attaches unless the other party establishes that he has “substantial … may not have fully understood the legal ramifications resulting from the transfer of Association funds at the time the transfer occurred, Defendants point out that the operating agreement that was thereafter created clearly

Williams v. Kizer

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Apr 14, 2021

“Qualified immunity protects officers who commit constitutional violations but who, in light of clearly established law, could reasonably believe that their actions were lawful.” Henry v. … was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.”

Sherrill v. Railroad

140 N.C. 252 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 12, 1905

It is further held that negligence having been first established, facts and attendant circumstances may so qualify this obligation to look and listen, as to require the question of contributory negligence to be submitted … The case, we think, comes within the principles so clearly stated in Smith v. Railroad, 132 N. C., 825 . There is erfor and a new trial is awarded. New Trial.

Equal Employment Oppurtunity Commission v. Dollar General Corp.

252 F. Supp. 2d 277 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Mar 20, 2003

Bost was a quali *282 fied individual with a disability, Plaintiff cannot establish its prima facie case. … Therefore, to establish a prima facie case of discriminatory firing, “a plaintiff must prove: (1) he has a disability; (2) he is a qualified individual; and (3) in discharging] him, his employer diseriminate[d] against [him

State v. Watts

172 N.C. App. 58 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Aug 2, 2005

Defendant contends that Special Agent Freeman, who was qualified as an expert in forensic DNA analysis, was not qualified to testify as to population statistics and argues error as to Special Agent *64 Freeman’s statements … The General Assembly established a statutory scheme to protect young females from older males.

State v. Basden

110 N.C. App. 449 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jun 1, 1993

Defendant, after stating that he understood his rights, freely, knowingly, understandingly and voluntarily waived immunity from prosecution and waived any right to prevent the use of his testimony in any criminal proceeding … To sustain a conviction for perjury, it is required that the falsity of the oath be established by the testimony of two witnesses, or by one witness and corroborating circumstances sufficient to turn the scales against the

McRoy v. Pitt Cnty., N.C.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Nov 5, 2025

Additionally, an association “may have standing in its own right to seek judicial relief from injury to itself and to vindicate whatever rights and immunities the association itself may enjoy.” Id. (quoting Warth v. … Conclusion All Plaintiffs clearly alleged sufficient facts and interests to establish standing to challenge Defendant’s unlawful actions to remove a war grave marker and memorial under the statute. N.C. Gen.

Jasmaine f/k/a Duane L. Fox v. Kinlisky

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Sep 20, 2021

and qualified immunity against Plaintiff’s claims. … Qualified Immunity “Qualified immunity protects officers who commit constitutional violations but who, in light of clearly established law, could reasonably

Waddill v. . Masten

172 N.C. 582 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 29, 1916

The defendant Masten was the duly qualified and acting register of deeds of Forsyth County from 1 December, 1908, to 1 December, 1912. … In the present case, if the allegations of the complaint are established, there was a vested right of action for these fees in the county of For-syth.

Turner v. . Reidsville

224 N.C. 42 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Mar 1, 1944

At the election a majority of the qualified voters approved, and thereafter anticipation notes were issued, surveys made, certain property purchased and condemnation proceedings instituted for the condemnation of lands outside … opinion is in full support of the view that the courts will not interfere with the lawfully expressed will of the community, in the interpretation of its interests and prospective needs, unless the objects to be attained are clearly

Valdez-Bey v. Castalone

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Jan 3, 2022

Qualified Immunity “Qualified immunity protects officers who commit constitutional violations but who, in light of clearly established law, could reasonably … “To determine whether an officer is entitled to qualified immunity, the court must examine (1) whether the plaintiff has demonstrated that the officer violated a constitutional right and (2) whether that right was clearly

State v. Santiago

148 N.C. App. 62 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Dec 28, 2001

Our decision is clearly supported by case law involving the admission of similar testimony. See, e.g., State v. … Clearly, the insertion of an object into Deanna’s rectum by defendant would constitute a first degree sexual offense.

In re: J.A.D.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Apr 19, 2022

The petition clearly apprised Jeremy of the conduct for which he was being charged with sufficient specificity to allow him to prepare an adequate defense. … “A variance between the criminal offense charged and the offense established by the evidence is in essence a failure of the State to establish the offense charged.” State v.

Bouygues Telecom, S.A. v. Tekelec

472 F. Supp. 2d 722 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Jan 31, 2007

That is clearly not the case with the opinions of these experts. … At hearing, the court will look to plaintiff to carry its burden of establishing Lancaster’s ability to opine specifically on such matters by a preponderance of the proof.

Forsyth County Hospital Authority, Inc. v. Bowen

675 F. Supp. 1002 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Dec 11, 1987

For these reasons, the parties have stipulated that plaintiff and the Foundation qualify as “related organizations” under 42 C.F.R. § 405.427 (1982). {Id. at 257). … findings, and conclusions upon any of the following specific bases: (A) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; (B) contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity

Shine v. The City of Asheville

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Jul 20, 2022

Qualified immunity shields police officers in their individual capacities from liability unless their conduct constitutes a violation of clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … In determining whether the officer at issue is entitled to qualified immunity, the Court must (1) identify the specific right violated; (2) determine whether the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged

Rosenthal v. City of Goldsboro

149 N.C. 128 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 19, 1908

This doctrine, so clearly and forcibly stated by the learned Justice, was apparently qualified to some extent in State v. Higgs, a decision of this Court, reported in 126 N. … public weal, and will never do so unless their action should be so clearly unreasonable as to amount to an oppressive and manifest abuse of their discretion.

King v. North Carolina State Board of Sanitarian Examiners

82 N.C. App. 409 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Aug 5, 1986

In Adams’ and McQueen’s cases the Board argues that, the Findings of Fact clearly established that the petitioners were denied certification as registered sanitarians under the grandfather provisions of G.S. 90A-61(a) because … In King’s and Wisely’s case the Board argues that the Findings of Fact clearly established that the petitioners were denied certification as registered sanitarians under the grandfather provisions of G.S. 90A-61(a) because