This case involved homeowners suing the City of Charlotte for damages from a sewage backup that flooded their house on November 22, 1976, alleging negligence in maintaining the sewer system (including failure to inspect), breach of contract, breach of implied warranty, and trespass. The trial court granted a directed verdict for the city at the close of plaintiffs' evidence, and the appellate court affirmed, holding that the evidence was insufficient as a matter of law to support a verdict for the plaintiffs on any ground. The court reasoned that a municipality is not an insurer of its sewer system and can only be liable for negligence if it has actual or constructive notice of a defect or obstruction and fails to act, which plaintiffs failed to prove here; the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur was inapplicable given other possible causes, and the alternative claims were rejected because they would impose absolute liability.
The case involved defendant Milan Albert LeDuc, who was charged with conspiracy to feloniously possess more than one ounce of marijuana in North Carolina. The defendant moved for nonsuit, arguing insufficient evidence to submit the charge to the jury. The Court of Appeals held that the evidence was sufficient, as it showed the defendant chartered a boat, sailed to Colombia, loaded marijuana, navigated to North Carolina, and unloaded it at night with accomplices, supporting an inference of an agreement to commit the unlawful act. The court applied the standard that evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the State, allowing reasonable inferences, and found it raised more than mere suspicion. Therefore, the denial of the motions was affirmed.
This case involved a buyer who purchased a 1976 Dodge Ramcharger with a persistent vibration defect and sued both the dealer (Hyatt Chrysler-Plymouth) and manufacturer (Chrysler) for breach of the manufacturer's express limited warranty, which promised free repairs for defective parts. The trial court ruled that Chrysler could not be liable due to lack of privity and that the buyer had not proven compensable damages beyond consequential losses. The appellate court held that the absence of privity does not bar a direct claim against the manufacturer for breach of its express warranty under the rule from Kinlaw v. Long Mfg., that the trial court improperly excluded the buyer's testimony on the vehicle's diminished value, and that damages should be measured under G.S. 25-2-714(2) as the difference in value at acceptance, subject to an offset for any increase from later repairs after accounting for depreciation. The court vacated the judgment and remanded for a new trial.
This case concerned whether covenants in property deeds were enforceable by a homeowners' association to collect assessments from lot owners for road maintenance, trails, and recreational areas. The court decided that the covenants were not enforceable. The reasoning was that covenants imposing affirmative obligations must be clear and unambiguous with ascertainable standards allowing a court to objectively determine the amount and purpose of assessments, but the covenants here failed to identify specific properties to be maintained or provide any limiting standard for the assessments. The court affirmed the judgment in favor of the defendants.
The case involved a first-tier subcontractor seeking to enforce a mechanics' lien on improved real property under Chapter 44A of the North Carolina General Statutes and claiming that a later conveyance of the property was fraudulent. The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendants on both claims, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The court reasoned that a subcontractor's lien rights arise only by subrogation to the general contractor's lien, but the contractor had waived its lien rights in an affidavit executed before the subcontractor filed its claim, leaving no rights to which the plaintiff could subrogate. The court further held that no funds were owed to the contractor at the relevant time and that, absent a valid lien, the plaintiff lacked standing to challenge the conveyance as fraudulent.
In State v. Fuller, the defendant appealed her conviction for theft-related charges, challenging the trial court's jurisdiction to hold the sentencing hearing and impose judgment in Chatham County after a jury verdict of guilty was returned in Orange County, and also claiming the judge improperly expressed an opinion on a fact by instructing a witness to describe what the defendant did during the alleged offense. The court held that it had jurisdiction to sentence in Chatham County and found no error in the trial proceedings. The ruling on jurisdiction rested on G.S. 15A-1334(c), which expressly permits a sentencing hearing in another county or district after conviction, with conviction occurring upon the jury's return of a guilty verdict rather than formal entry of judgment by the court. On the second issue, the court determined that the judge's question to the witness served only to clarify testimony and did not constitute an expression of opinion in violation of G.S. 15A-1222.