127 N.C. App.
Volume 127 — North Carolina Court of Appeals Reports
120 opinions
- 127 N.C. App. 1ESTATE OF SMITH, BY & THROUGH SMITH v. Underwood (1997)
- 127 N.C. App. 20Barham v. Barham (1997)
- 127 N.C. App. 33Wake County Hospital System, Inc. v. Safety National Casualty Corp. (1997)
- 127 N.C. App. 44Norman v. Cameron (1997)
- 127 N.C. App. 54State v. Hurst (1997)
- 127 N.C. App. 63Purser v. Mecklenburg County (1997)
- 127 N.C. App. 71Virmani v. Presbyterian Health Services Corp. (1997)
- 127 N.C. App. 79Bryant v. Hogarth (1997)
- 127 N.C. App. 87Carlson v. Carlson (1997)
- 127 N.C. App. 95Barrett v. Hyldburg (1997)
- 127 N.C. App. 102Maynor v. Onslow County (1997)
- 127 N.C. App. 109Holterman v. Holterman (1997)
- 127 N.C. App. 115State v. Ward (1997)
- 127 N.C. App. 123Hartford Fire Insurance v. Pierce (1997)
- 127 N.C. App. 129State v. Wilson (1997)
- 127 N.C. App. 134Minter v. Osborne Co. (1997)
- 127 N.C. App. 139Sockwell & Associates, Inc. v. Sykes Enterprises Inc. (1997)
- 127 N.C. App. 144Parham v. Iredell County Department of Social Services (1997)
- 127 N.C. App. 150Lewis v. City of Kinston (1997)
- 127 N.C. App. 156Walker v. Board of Trustees of the North Carolina Local Governmental Employees' Retirement System (1997)
- 127 N.C. App. 162Robbins v. Freeman (1997)
- 127 N.C. App. 167State v. Downey (1997)
- 127 N.C. App. 172Ellington v. Hester (1997)
- 127 N.C. App. 177M. B. Haynes Corp. v. Strand Electro Controls, Inc. (1997)
- 127 N.C. App. 182State v. Allen (1997)
<bold>1. Homicide § 370 (NCI4th) — second-degree murder — aiding and</bold> <bold>abetting — "friend exception" — sufficient evidence</bold> <block_quote> There was sufficient evidence to support defendant's conviction of second-degree murder based upon aiding and abetting where the evidence at trial indicated that defendant was aware of the murderer's intent to kill the victim, defendant accompanied the murderer and other men as they took the victim to the murder scene in a van, and defendant was at the scene of the murder, standing and watching as the victim was shot. This evidence coupled with the evidence that defendant and the murderer were friends was sufficient, under the "friend exception," to support an inference that defendant, by his presence, had communicated that he was willing to assist in the crime if it became necessary.</block_quote> <bold>2. Evidence and Witnesses § 875 (NCI4th) — misapplication of "state</bold> <bold>of mind" hearsay exception — prejudicial error</bold> <block_quote> Testimony by a witness in a second-degree murder prosecution that her mother told her that defendant threatened by telephone to harm the witness if she came to court was hearsay and improperly admitted under the state of mind exception to the hearsay rule. Furthermore, the admission of the testimony was prejudicial error since the testimony could clearly have caused the jury to believe defendant was attempting to repress the witness's testimony of defendant's involvement in the crime and to disbelieve defendant's testimony that he was not present during the crime, and it cannot be said that there is no reasonable possibility that a different result would have been reached if the testimony had been excluded. N.C.G.S. § <cross_reference>8C-1</cross_reference>, Rule 801(c).</block_quote><page_number>Page 183</page_number>
- 127 N.C. App. 187Franklin Credit Recovery Fund, XXI, L.P. v. Foreclosure of Deeds of Trust of Huber (1997)
- 127 N.C. App. 191Little v. Little (1997)
- 127 N.C. App. 193Seely v. Borum & Associates, Inc. (1997)
- 127 N.C. App. 197Tucker v. Meis (1997)
- 127 N.C. App. 199Biggers v. John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance (1997)
- 127 N.C. App. 202McFadyen v. Freeman (1997)
- 127 N.C. App. 205Vereen v. Holden (1997)
- 127 N.C. App. 212Tate Terrace Realty Investors, Inc. v. Currituck County (1997)
- 127 N.C. App. 225Regan v. Amerimark Building Products, Inc. (1997)
- 127 N.C. App. 235Nourse v. Food Lion, Inc. (1997)
- 127 N.C. App. 244Futrelle v. Duke University (1997)
- 127 N.C. App. 252State v. Stinson (1997)
- 127 N.C. App. 260Wilmoth v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance (1997)
- 127 N.C. App. 266Rymer v. ESTATE OF SORRELLS, BY SORRELLS (1997)
- 127 N.C. App. 271Carter v. Food Lion, Inc. (1997)
- 127 N.C. App. 277Estate of Mullis ex rel. Dixon v. Monroe Oil Co. (1997)
- 127 N.C. App. 281Briley v. Farabow (1997)
- 127 N.C. App. 286State v. Fly (1997)
- 127 N.C. App. 291Toole Ex Rel. Welch v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance (1997)
- 127 N.C. App. 296In re D.R.D. (1997)
- 127 N.C. App. 301ESTATE OF DARBY, BY DARBY v. Monroe Oil Co., Inc. (1997)
- 127 N.C. App. 304Trantham v. Lane (1997)
- 127 N.C. App. 309Dew v. State Ex Rel. North Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles (1997)
- 127 N.C. App. 312Laborers' International Union v. Case Farms, Inc. (1997)
- 127 N.C. App. 316State v. Ballard (1997)
- 127 N.C. App. 327Southern Building Maintenance, Inc. v. Osborne (1997)
- 127 N.C. App. 336Meehan v. Cable (1997)
- 127 N.C. App. 342Department of Transportation v. Coleman (1997)
- 127 N.C. App. 347Lloyd v. Town of Chapel Hill (1997)
- 127 N.C. App. 353Mitchell County Department of Social Services v. Carpenter (1997)
- 127 N.C. App. 359Smith v. Sealed Air Corp. (1997)
- 127 N.C. App. 365Department of Transportation v. Nelson Co. (1997)
- 127 N.C. App. 370Matter of Hunt (1997)
- 127 N.C. App. 375State v. Helms (1997)
- 127 N.C. App. 381Town Center Associates v. Y & C Corp. (1997)
- 127 N.C. App. 387State ex rel. Horne v. Horne (1997)
- 127 N.C. App. 391State v. Phillips (1997)
- 127 N.C. App. 399State v. Barfield (1997)
- 127 N.C. App. 405Erie Insurance Group v. Buckner (1997)
- 127 N.C. App. 409Becker v. Becker (1997)
- 127 N.C. App. 415Ross v. Voiers (1997)
- 127 N.C. App. 421Williams v. Hinton (1997)
- 127 N.C. App. 426Ammons v. County of Wake (1997)
- 127 N.C. App. 431State v. Thomas (1997)
- 127 N.C. App. 434Jackson v. Department of Administration (1997)
- 127 N.C. App. 437State v. Love (1997)
- 127 N.C. App. 440Integon General Insurance v. Martin (1997)
- 127 N.C. App. 442North Carolina Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance v. Briley (1997)
- 127 N.C. App. 449Shackelford v. City of Wilmington (1997)
- 127 N.C. App. 457Chicago Title Insurance v. Wetherington (1997)
- 127 N.C. App. 464State v. Williams (1997)
- 127 N.C. App. 471Swann v. Len-Care Rest Home, Inc. (1997)
- 127 N.C. App. 477Briggs v. Rankin (1997)
- 127 N.C. App. 483Pryor v. Merten (1997)
- 127 N.C. App. 488Glover v. Farmer (1997)
- 127 N.C. App. 493VANCE CONST. CO., INC. v. Duane White Land Corp. (1997)
- 127 N.C. App. 496Bruton v. North Carolina Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance (1997)
- 127 N.C. App. 499Department of Transportation v. Haggerty (1997)
- 127 N.C. App. 502Asfar v. Charlotte Auto Auction, Inc. (1997)
- 127 N.C. App. 505Matter of Helms (1997)
<bold>1. Trial § 597 (NCI4th) — juvenile neglect — findings</bold> <bold>and conclusions distinguished</bold> <block_quote> As a general rule, any determination requiring the exercise of judgment or application of legal principles is classified a conclusion of law, while any determination reached through logical reasoning from the evidentiary facts is classified a finding of fact. The determination of neglect in juvenile cases requires the application of the legal principles set forth in N.C.G.S. § 7A-517(21) and is therefore a conclusion of law. The determinations that DSS has made reasonable efforts to prevent the need for removal of the child from the parent and that it is in the best interest of the child to be in the custody of DSS are conclusions of law because they require an exercise of judgment.</block_quote><page_number>Page 506</page_number> <bold>2. Infants or Minors § 120 (NCI4th) — juvenile neglect</bold> <bold>order — finding that child exposed to risk — supported</bold> <bold>by evidence</bold> <block_quote> Clear and convincing competent evidence supports a trial court's finding of fact in a juvenile neglect order that respondent had exposed her child to risk by allowing her extended contact with Strube and Helms, respondent's father and the putative father of the child, in that the record reveals that both were abusive to respondent, Strube used cocaine and has attempted to assault respondent sexually, and, in violation of DSS protection plans, respondent and the child lived with Strube and respondent continued to allow Helms extended and unsupervised contact with the child.</block_quote> <bold>3. Infants or Minors § 120 (NCI4th) — conclusion that</bold> <bold>juvenile neglected — findings — unstable living</bold> <bold>arrangements</bold> <block_quote> The trial court's conclusion of law that Brittny is a neglected juvenile was supported by findings of fact that Brittny was substantially at risk due to the instability of her living arrangements and that the environment in which respondent and Brittny lived was injurious in that it involved drugs, violence, and attempted sexual assault.</block_quote> <bold>4. Infants or Minors § 126 (NCI4th) — juvenile neglect order</bold> <bold>— conclusion of reasonable efforts by DSS — supported</bold> <bold>by findings</bold> <block_quote> The trial court's conclusion that DSS made reasonable efforts to prevent a child's removal from her home was supported by evidence, reflected in the findings, that DSS entered into four different protection plans with respondent which reflect an effort by DSS to stabilize the child's home environment and protect her from violent individuals and drugs and which also encouraged respondent to apply for food stamps, AFDC, and Medicaid.</block_quote> <bold>5. Infants or Minors § 128 (NCI4th) — juvenile neglect</bold> <bold>— child's best interest — DSS custody — conclusion</bold> <bold>supported by finding</bold> <block_quote> The trial court's conclusion that it was in a child's best interest to continue in the custody of DSS pending respondent-mother's compliance with reunification measures was supported by findings that the child lived in an environment injurious to her welfare and that respondent had failed to comply with DSS's efforts to prevent removal.</block_quote><page_number>Page 507</page_number> <bold>6. Infants or Minors § 122 (NCI4th) — juvenile neglect</bold> <bold>order — reunification requirements — child's best</bold> <bold>interests — conclusion supported by findings</bold> <block_quote> There were sufficient findings in a juvenile neglect order to support the conclusion that reunification requirements are in the child's best interests where the finding that respondent moved several times during the four months she retained custody of Brittny supports the conclusion that it is in the child's best interest for respondent to provide a stable environment; the findings that respondent's father used cocaine and that respondent and the child tested positive for drugs support the conclusion that it is in the child's best interest for respondent to submit to drug testing and provide a drug-free environment for the child; the findings that respondent's father and the child's putative father have repeatedly abused respondent support the conclusion that it is in the child's best interest for respondent to cooperate with domestic violence and dependency counseling; and the findings that respondent continued to allow her father and the child's father access to Brittny despite their violent behavior, and the finding that Brittny may have been malnourished, support the conclusion that it is in Brittny's best interest for respondent to complete a parenting course.</block_quote>
- 127 N.C. App. 514Deason v. J. King Harrison Co., Inc. (1997)
- 127 N.C. App. 521Welsher v. Rager (1997)
- 127 N.C. App. 529Grantham v. R. G. Barry Corp. (1997)
- 127 N.C. App. 536State v. Deese (1997)
- 127 N.C. App. 542Taylor v. Caldwell Systems, Inc. (1997)
- 127 N.C. App. 546Onslow County v. Moore (1997)
- 127 N.C. App. 549State v. Willis (1997)
- 127 N.C. App. 565State v. White (1997)
- 127 N.C. App. 575State v. Ruff (1997)
- 127 N.C. App. 585Dare County Board of Education v. Sakaria (1997)
- 127 N.C. App. 592State v. Wright (1997)
- 127 N.C. App. 599Anderson Ex Rel. Jerome v. Town of Andrews (1997)
- 127 N.C. App. 604Boone v. Vinson (1997)
- 127 N.C. App. 610Inland Greens HOA, Inc. v. Dallas Harris Real Estate-Construction Inc. (1997)
- 127 N.C. App. 615Strickland v. Carolina Classics Catfish, Inc. (1997)
- 127 N.C. App. 619Shiloh Methodist Church v. Keever Heating & Cooling Co. (1997)
- 127 N.C. App. 623Harlow v. Voyager Communications V (1997)
- 127 N.C. App. 626Woody v. Woody (1997)
- 127 N.C. App. 629Virmani v. Presbyterian Health Services Corp. (1997)
- 127 N.C. App. 649Gordon v. Garner (1997)
- 127 N.C. App. 663Lorbacher v. Housing Authority of Raleigh (1997)
- 127 N.C. App. 677State v. Applewhite (1997)
- 127 N.C. App. 685State v. Connell (1997)
- 127 N.C. App. 693Everhart & Associates, Inc. v. Department of Environment, Health & Natural Resources (1997)
- 127 N.C. App. 700Sedman v. Rijdes (1997)
- 127 N.C. App. 705Sharpe v. Nobles (1997)
- 127 N.C. App. 711Aaron v. New Fortis Homes, Inc. (1997)
- 127 N.C. App. 717Howell v. Clyde (1997)
- 127 N.C. App. 723Stanly County Dept. of Social Services ex rel. Dennis v. Reeder (1997)
- 127 N.C. App. 729Fieldcrest Cannon, Inc. v. Fireman's Fund Insurance (1997)
- 127 N.C. App. 734Marlow v. North Carolina Employment Security Commission (1997)
- 127 N.C. App. 739Wooten v. Town of Topsail Beach (1997)
- 127 N.C. App. 743Agnoff Family Revocable Trust v. Landfall Associates (1997)
- 127 N.C. App. 745Carolina Spirits, Inc. v. City of Raleigh (1997)
- 127 N.C. App. 748Kortesis v. Medical Park Hospital Inc. (1997)