Quantcast
Home (page 3)

Tag Archives: Guilford County

Domestic Relations – Separation Agreement – Nondisclosure Claim – Ratification – Equitable Distribution Waiver (access required)

Rolls v. Rolls. (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-16-0007, 8 pp.) (Sanford L. Steelman Jr., J.) Appealed from Guilford County District Court. (Joseph E. Turner, J.) N.C. App. Unpub. Click here for the full text of the opinion. Holding: In the plaintiff-wife’s ...

Read More »

Tort/Negligence – Fifth Amendment – Civil Action – Discovery – Contributory Negligence (access required)

Lovendahl v. Wicker. A defendant in a civil case can assert his Fifth Amendment rights and refuse to answer questions in a deposition, but not without consequence to his civil case. Where defendant refused to answer questions at his deposition . . .

Read More »

Criminal Practice – Constitutional – Due Process – Suspect Identification – Show Up – ERIA Inapplicable (access required)

State v. Rawls. When a break-in victim was taken to a nearby apartment complex moments after the break-in so she could identify suspects the police had detained, this show-up procedure was not regulated by the Eyewitness Identification Reform Act. Even though the show-up procedure was impermissibly suggestive, the circumstances of this case - including the victim's opportunity to see the perpetrators and the certainty of her identification - lead us to the conclusion that there was not a substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification. No error in defendant's conviction of felony breaking and entering.

Read More »

Tort/Negligence – Shredder – Woodson Claim – Underage Employee – Missing Guard – ‘Substantially Certain’ (access required)

Valenzuela v. Pallet Express, Inc. The estate of a teenager who was killed while operating a shredder could not escape the workers' comp regime and state a Woodson claim for negligence against his employer, even though the decedent was too young to operate the heavy machinery and a safety guard had been removed. The reason: There was no evidence that the employer knew its actions were substantially certain to cause serious injury or death. Summary judgment for the defendants is affirmed.

Read More »