<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>North Carolina Lawyers Weekly &#187; Courts</title>
	<atom:link href="http://nclawyersweekly.com/category/courts/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://nclawyersweekly.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 24 May 2013 22:56:47 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Tort/Negligence &#8211; STCA – Real Property – Environmental – Administrative – Septic System – ‘Perk’ Test – Expert Testimony – Common Knowledge&#160;</title>
		<link>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/05/24/tortnegligence-stca-real-property-environmental-administrative-septic-system-perk-test-expert-testimony-commo/</link>
		<comments>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/05/24/tortnegligence-stca-real-property-environmental-administrative-septic-system-perk-test-expert-testimony-commo/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 24 May 2013 22:56:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Most Important Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[N.C. Court of Appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tort-Negligence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Real Property]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nclawyersweekly.com/?p=73394</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<em>Russell v. N.C. Department of Environment &#038; Natural Resources</em> Since the evidence indicated that, when plaintiffs’ lot was supposedly tested for septic tank suitability, the soil sample was apparently taken from a different lot, expert testimony was unnecessary to show professional malpractice. We affirm the Industrial Commission’s conclusion that defendant was negligent; however, we reverse the damage award and remand for further proceedings on this issue.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/05/24/tortnegligence-stca-real-property-environmental-administrative-septic-system-perk-test-expert-testimony-commo/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Criminal Practice &#8211; Right to Remain Silent – State’s Evidence – Right to Plead Not Guilty&#160;</title>
		<link>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/05/23/criminal-practice-right-to-remain-silent-states-evidence-right-to-plead-not-guilty/</link>
		<comments>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/05/23/criminal-practice-right-to-remain-silent-states-evidence-right-to-plead-not-guilty/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 23 May 2013 15:18:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[4th Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Criminal Practice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Most Important Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[victim’s fear]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nclawyersweekly.com/?p=73342</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<em>State v. Bean </em> Although the state elicited evidence that defendant exercised her right to remain silent, given the other evidence of defendant’s guilt – her own admissions to a nurse, “I killed my husband just because I finally had enough of him” and “I’m guilty” and the victim’s fear that defendant would kill him – the prosecutor’s comments and questions regarding whether defendant mentioned self-defense prior to trial had little bearing on the jury finding defendant guilty.
]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/05/23/criminal-practice-right-to-remain-silent-states-evidence-right-to-plead-not-guilty/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Criminal Practice &#8211; Attempted Larceny – Completed Offense – Jury Instructions – Injury to Personal Property&#160;</title>
		<link>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/05/23/criminal-practice-attempted-larceny-completed-offense-jury-instructions-injury-to-personal-property/</link>
		<comments>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/05/23/criminal-practice-attempted-larceny-completed-offense-jury-instructions-injury-to-personal-property/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 23 May 2013 14:57:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[4th Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Criminal Practice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Most Important Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Personal Property]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nclawyersweekly.com/?p=73338</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<em>State v. Primus </em> Even though the list of the elements of attempted felonious larceny set out in State v. Weaver, 123 N.C. App. 276, 473 S.E.2d 362 (1996), included “falling short of the completed offense,” and even though the state proved that defendant completed the offense of felonious larceny, this does not require the conclusion that proof of the completed offense disproves the attempt to commit. The completed commission of a crime must of necessity include an attempt to commit the crime.
]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/05/23/criminal-practice-attempted-larceny-completed-offense-jury-instructions-injury-to-personal-property/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Criminal Practice &#8211; Murder – Evidence – Eyewitness – Lesser Included Offense&#160;</title>
		<link>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/05/23/criminal-practice-murder-evidence-eyewitness-lesser-included-offense/</link>
		<comments>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/05/23/criminal-practice-murder-evidence-eyewitness-lesser-included-offense/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 23 May 2013 14:49:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[4th Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Criminal Practice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Most Important Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[the credibility of the witness’s identification of defendant was a question for the jury]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[though one of the eyewitnesses was only 10 years old at the time of the shooting]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nclawyersweekly.com/?p=73336</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<em>State v. Ingram </em> though one of the eyewitnesses was only 10 years old at the time of the shooting, the credibility of the witness’s identification of defendant was a question for the jury. ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/05/23/criminal-practice-murder-evidence-eyewitness-lesser-included-offense/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Criminal Practice &#8211; DWI – Breath Tests – Sequential – Observation Period&#160;</title>
		<link>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/05/23/criminal-practice-dwi-breath-tests-sequential-observation-period/</link>
		<comments>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/05/23/criminal-practice-dwi-breath-tests-sequential-observation-period/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 23 May 2013 14:40:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[4th Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Criminal Practice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Most Important Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ntoximeter]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nclawyersweekly.com/?p=73329</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<em>State v. Cathcart </em>  Even though defendant’s failure to provide a second adequate breath sample caused the Intoximeter to time out, requiring the arresting officer to reset it to obtain another breath sample, defendant provided two breath samples within 11 minutes, registering alcohol concentrations of .10 and .09. These test results were admissible.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/05/23/criminal-practice-dwi-breath-tests-sequential-observation-period/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Insurance -No UM/UIM ‘Stacking’ for Policy Omission&#160;</title>
		<link>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/05/23/insurance-no-umuim-stacking-for-policy-omission/</link>
		<comments>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/05/23/insurance-no-umuim-stacking-for-policy-omission/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 23 May 2013 14:36:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[4th Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Insurance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Most Important Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[UM/UIM coverage]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nclawyersweekly.com/?p=73326</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<em>Dooley v. Hartford Accident &#38; Indemnity Co. </em> Although an auto liability policy failed to specify any specific amount of uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage provided, that omission did not mean the policy terms prohibiting “stacking,” or combining coverage for multiple insured vehicles, were ambiguous under Virginia law and would allow stacking. The 4th Circuit affirms the district court’s denial of additional coverage to appellant]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/05/23/insurance-no-umuim-stacking-for-policy-omission/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Civil Rights &#8211; No Fair Housing Claim from HOA’s ATV Denial&#160;</title>
		<link>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/05/23/civil-rights-no-fair-housing-claim-from-hoas-atv-denial/</link>
		<comments>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/05/23/civil-rights-no-fair-housing-claim-from-hoas-atv-denial/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 23 May 2013 14:28:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[4th Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Civil Rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Most Important Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Fair Housing Amendments]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nclawyersweekly.com/?p=73323</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<em>Scoggins v. Lee’s Crossing Homeowners Ass’n </em> A homeowners association for Lee’s Crossing subdivision wins a housing discrimination suit under the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 filed by a family who was denied the right for their disabled adult son to use an all-terrain vehicle on the subdivision’s unpaved roads; the 4th Circuit affirms summary judgment for the HOA and on the HOA’s cross-appeal, affirms denial of their request for attorney’s fees]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/05/23/civil-rights-no-fair-housing-claim-from-hoas-atv-denial/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Prisons &amp; Jails &#8211; Claim Mooted for Prison Visitation Denial&#160;</title>
		<link>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/05/23/prisons-jails-claim-mooted-for-prison-visitation-denial/</link>
		<comments>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/05/23/prisons-jails-claim-mooted-for-prison-visitation-denial/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 23 May 2013 14:08:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[4th Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Most Important Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Prisons and Jails]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[First Amendment right]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nclawyersweekly.com/?p=73316</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<em>Williams v. Ozmint </em>  Restoration of a prison inmate’s visiting privileges has mooted his appeal of suspension of those privileges for a two-year period as a penalty for the inmate’s suspected receipt of contraband; the 4th Circuit further concludes that the prison warden who imposed the suspicion is shielded by qualified immunity because the inmate did not have a clearly established right to visitation.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/05/23/prisons-jails-claim-mooted-for-prison-visitation-denial/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Labor &amp; Employment &#8211; No ADA Claim from Leave Denial&#160;</title>
		<link>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/05/23/labor-employment-no-ada-claim-from-leave-denial/</link>
		<comments>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/05/23/labor-employment-no-ada-claim-from-leave-denial/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 23 May 2013 13:51:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[4th Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Labor & Employment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Most Important Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Chapter 13 bankruptcy]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nclawyersweekly.com/?p=73311</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<em>Wilson v. Dollar General Corp. </em>  An employee of a chain-store distribution center who filed his disability discrimination claim with the EEOC before he filed his Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition has standing to pursue his discrimination claim, the 4th Circuit says, but the claim has no merit as the employee did not show he could perform the essential functions of his job had he been granted a brief additional leave for treatment of his vision impairment.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/05/23/labor-employment-no-ada-claim-from-leave-denial/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Environmental &#8211; CWA Permit Upheld for Mine Company&#160;</title>
		<link>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/05/23/environmental-cwa-permit-upheld-for-mine-company/</link>
		<comments>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/05/23/environmental-cwa-permit-upheld-for-mine-company/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 23 May 2013 13:43:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[4th Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Environmental]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Most Important Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Clean Water Act]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nclawyersweekly.com/?p=73308</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<em>Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition Inc. v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers </em>  The 4th Circuit affirms issuance of a water quality permit under the Clean Water Act to Highland Mining Company, on the basis that a proposed surface coal mine adjacent to a stream in Logan County would not damage water quality or violate water quality standards.
]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/05/23/environmental-cwa-permit-upheld-for-mine-company/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
