By dmc-admin
Published: December 22,2008
Wiggs v. Peedin. (Lawyers Weekly No. 08-07-1387, 13 pp.) (John M. Tyson, J.) Appealed from Wayne County Superior Court. (Jack W. Jenkins, J.) N.C. App. Holding: A widow continued her husband’s commercial hog farming operation with plaintiffs for five years after her husband’s death. She may be bound by the terms of her husband’s partnership [...]
By dmc-admin
Published: April 2,2007
Even though the plaintiff-liquidator was properly elected by the plaintiff-limited partnerships, since the liquidator plans only to pursue certain of the limited partnerships’ legal claims rather than winding up all of their affairs in this state, the court will exercise its inherent power to appoint a receiver for the limited partnerships. The defendants’ motion to [...]
NC Lawyers Weekly keeps you connected with the latest legal news, Daily Practice and Breaking
News alerts.
Sign up for NC Lawyers Weekly email alerts
Russell v. N.C. Department of Environment & Natural Resources 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.
State v. Bean 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.
State v. Primus 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.
