North Carolina Lawyers Weekly

  Even though defendant entered into a plea agreement with the state, the state was still required to prove her prior criminal record level by a preponderance of the evidence. The state did not proffer a stipulation by the parties, ...

  After this court upheld an order requiring defendant to submit a permit application as an operator of a landfill, the Environmental Management Commission proposed a new rule governing hazardous waste generators. This court’s determination was made under 40 C.F.R. ...

  The defendant-mother’s behavior—such as hiding the parties’ child from the plaintiff-father and engaging in a game that required the child to touch her breast—have traumatized the child; after visits with the mother, incidents of the child soiling her underpants ...

Even though the plaintiff-daycare pursued an administrative challenge to defendant’s 2010 disciplinary action against it, since this tort action seeks monetary damages—a remedy not available under the Administrative Procedure Act—the statute of limitations was not tolled while plaintiff pursued its ...

  Defendant signed her own name when she used the victims’ credit cards; however, the state was not required to show that defendant engaged in a financial card transaction literally “in the other person’s name.” Therefore, defense counsel’s failure to ...

The trial court should have exercised its discretion in determining whether to allow the defendant-wife to present the testimony of an expert witness, whom the wife disclosed only one day before the parties’ alimony trial. Upon our de novo review ...

    The Department of Social Services sought to provide protective services to the respondent-adult, alleging that he lacked capacity to consent to the provision of such services. DSS was required to prove that respondent was “without able, responsible, and ...

  During a year other than a countywide property reappraisal, the Union County Board of Equalization and Review re-valued a taxpayer’s property, purportedly due to a misapplication of the schedule of values as permitted under G.S. § 105-287(a)(2). However, the ...

After the respondent-administrator failed to file a proper account for her father’s estate, the clerk of court removed the administrator pursuant to G.S. § 28A-21-4. Such a removal was an estate proceeding rather than a special proceeding; consequently, on appeal ...

  Defendants contend that they did not owe plaintiff a fiduciary duty when defendant WFT, Inc.’s affairs were winding up because plaintiff had not yet become a creditor of WFT at that time. Despite the fact that plaintiff did not ...