Martinez v. Otis Elevator Co. Where plaintiff has forecast evidence that he was following his supervisor’s instructions and the same procedure the masons had been using for several days – working on the elevator shaft while a temporary lift was on the floor above them – with the understanding the lift would not be moved while they were working without prior approval of the masons, the court cannot find as a matter of law that plaintiff was contributorily negligent by working in the elevator shaft below the temporary lift. To the extent that defendant contends plaintiff was negligent by failing to keep a “lookout”, there is conflicting testimony regarding whether any safety light flashed or alarm sounded prior to the lift moving.
Dayton v. Dayton Where the trial court made a final finding under G.S. § 28C-11(a) that plaintiff’s missing person had suffered an accidental death, this was a final decree, and the defendant-insurance company neither appealed, nor timely filed a motion to amend.
Davidson v. City of Statesville (Lawyers Weekly No. 12-04-0536, 16 pp.) (Richard L. Voorhees, J.) 5:10-cv-00182; W.D.N.C. Holding: Although it is uncontested that plaintiff’s decedent made bizarre statements during his arrest, the parties disagree as to his physical resistance. There is a genuine issue as to the reasonableness of the defendant-officers’ actions in tasing and [...]
Glendale LLC v. Amco Insurance Co. Where the defendant-insurer’s appraiser and the appraisal umpire incorporated issues of causation and coverage into their appraisal of the fire damage to plaintiff’s restaurant, the appraisal is invalid. Plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment is granted as to the only damages item on which the parties agree: $14,839 in lost perishable goods. Otherwise, the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment are denied.
Taddei v. Village Creek Property Owners Association, Inc. Even though one paragraph of the subdivision’s restrictive covenants only allows the declarant, or its successors or assigns, to amend the covenants in order to bring them into compliance with town ordinances, another paragraph of the covenants allows a majority of property owners to amend the covenants before they are renewed every 10 years. The defendant-homeowners’ association followed the latter paragraph’s requirements to amend the covenants.
Eaton v. Campbell Although defendants “question[] the law that should have been applied to decide the issues presented herein,” defendants fail to identify what, if any, relevant law was the source of the purported “confusion and misinterpretation in the [trial court’s] rulings,” and which, if any, law should have been applied in its stead. Because defendants’ limited and unsupported arguments give us no reason to disturb the trial court’s judgment in which its conclusions of law are supported by its findings of fact which are, in turn, supported by the record evidence, we affirm.
Dawkins v. Richmond County Schools Plaintiff alleges that he was let go from his teaching position because, according to a school administrator, the defendant-principal “had a problem with” plaintiff’s sexual orientation. This allegation is sufficient to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for a violation of the Equal Protection Clause.
State v. Rollins Defendant had been shoplifting before the high-speed chase that ended in a fatal crash. Evidence of the shoplifting spree was admissible to explain why defendant was trying so aggressively to evade the officers chasing him. The voluminous and organized nature of the shoplifting expedition explained why defendant was driving in the manner that he was for purposes of the malice element of second-degree murder.
State v. Tyson When defendant’s first trial ended in a hung jury and mistrial, the trial court ordered an immediate re-trial, rejecting defendant’s request for a transcript of the first trial. Although defendant argued he needed the transcript to effectively cross-examine the state’s witnesses, the trial court’s ruling – that the prospect of a witness changing his testimony was mere speculation – would apply to any case and makes no determination why defendant has no need for a transcript in this particular case, especially in light of the fact that the state’s case rested entirely on the victim’s identification of defendant as the perpetrator.
Beroth Oil Co. v. North Carolina Department of Transportation In preparation for a proposed northern beltway around Winston-Salem, the N.C. Department of Transportation has placed many tracts of land in regulatory limbo – the DOT is not yet buying most of the land, but it is restricting the owners’ ability to use the land. Given the uniqueness of land and the variety of uses to which the affected owners have put or may wish to put their land, the owners do not form a class within the meaning of N.C. R. Civ. P. 23.
