Francis Marion Parker jr

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.

torts & liabilitypropertyprocedure

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.

criminal lawprocedure

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.

business & regulatory

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.

property

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.

propertyprocedure

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.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a dispute between shareholders of W & H Graphics, Inc., a printing business, where one shareholder sued for damages and an accounting over retained corporate assets, and the defendant counterclaimed for breach of fiduciary duty; at trial, the plaintiff moved to amend the pleadings to seek involuntary dissolution of the corporation under G.S. 55-125. The trial court granted the amendment and ordered dissolution while dismissing the counterclaim. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the amendment was improper under Rule 15(b) because the evidence at trial was not directed to the issue of dissolution and the parties did not consent to trying that new issue. The court also held that the dismissal of the counterclaim under Rule 41(b) was error because the trial court failed to make required findings of fact under Rule 52(a). The case was remanded for further proceedings.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved a plaintiff suing Lowe's Companies for breach of contract, tortious conduct with punitive damages, and treble damages under G.S. 75-1.1 based on failed negotiations in which Lowe's allegedly offered to build a house on a turn-key basis for approximately $35,000. The trial court granted defendant's Rule 12(b)(6) motion and dismissed all three claims, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The court held that the complaint's allegations showed no contract was ever formed because the parties never agreed on final plans or a fixed price, that the facts alleged no actionable tort, and that the unsuccessful negotiations did not constitute an unfair or deceptive practice under the statute.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

The case involved a dispute between spouses over whether the husband's action for absolute divorce in Johnston County could proceed independently of the wife's prior action for alimony without divorce in Wayne County. The court decided that the prior Supreme Court mandate requiring the divorce action to be stayed or filed as a counterclaim remained binding despite a new statute permitting independent divorce actions. The core reasoning was that a legislative change cannot alter a final judicial determination of rights under procedural rules, and the trial court lacked authority to permit a voluntary dismissal contrary to the appellate mandate, leading to reversal of one order and affirmance of another dismissing the second divorce action.

family lawprocedure

This case involved a workers' compensation claim by an employee of the State Highway Commission who suffered a work-related injury resulting in permanent partial disability and sought an award of future medical expenses. The Industrial Commission reviewed and struck a hearing commissioner's conclusion and award requiring the employer to pay ongoing medical costs on the ground that they would lessen the employee's disability. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that under the version of G.S. 97-25 in effect at the time of the 1969 injury, post-ten-week medical expenses could be awarded only if they would tend to lessen the period of disability (interpreted as the period of diminished earnings), and the findings did not support that conclusion. The court noted that the statute's ten-week limit on treatments for cure or relief still applied and that a later amendment removing the limit did not govern this case.

labor & employmentprocedure

In this workers' compensation case, plaintiff Moore sought disability benefits from her employer JP Stevens under North Carolina law, claiming that her chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (bronchitis and emphysema) qualified as a compensable occupational disease caused by long-term exposure to cotton dust and lint in the textile mill. The Industrial Commission denied the claim, finding that the disease was not due to her occupational exposure. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the Commission's key finding on lack of causation was supported by medical expert testimony and satisfied the statutory requirements under G.S. 97-53(13) and G.S. 97-52, which place the burden on the claimant to prove both that the condition is characteristic of the employment and that it resulted from that employment rather than ordinary life exposures. The court noted that while some findings were imprecise or incomplete, they were adequate to support the denial without needing remand.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case involved plaintiffs who leased spaces in a mobile home park and some of whom purchased mobile homes from defendants, bringing claims for breach of lease agreements concerning facilities and services, wrongful taking or breach of trust regarding axles, wheels, and tires from the mobile homes, and unfair or deceptive acts under G.S. 75-1.1. The trial court directed verdicts for plaintiffs on the breach of lease and breach of constructive trust issues, leaving only damages for the jury. The appellate court reversed, holding that directed verdicts were improper because plaintiffs had the burden of proof and credibility issues remained for the jury on the nature of oral or advertised agreements and any bailment relationship; no constructive trust arose from the evidence of sales or storage; and good faith is relevant to treble damages claims under the statute, warranting a new trial.

business & regulatorypropertyproceduretorts & liability

This case concerns the limitations on hearings under North Carolina law prior to foreclosure by power of sale in a deed of trust. The court held that the hearing before the clerk and on appeal is restricted to determining whether there is a valid debt held by the foreclosing party, a default, a right to foreclose under the instrument, and proper notice. It reasoned that the statute aims to provide minimum due process without altering the contractual nature of the remedy, so disputes over the debt amount or title issues are irrelevant at this stage and can be addressed through separate injunction proceedings. The court modified the order by striking a finding on the exact balance owed and affirmed it as modified.

propertyprocedure

The case involved a buyer who purchased a 1976 Ford truck from Green Ford, Inc. for business use and experienced repeated mechanical problems with the transmission, steering, engine power, oil leaks, and other components despite multiple repair attempts under the manufacturer's warranty during the first year of ownership. The trial court granted directed verdicts for Ford Motor Company, Green Ford, and Ford Motor Credit Company on the buyer's breach of warranty claims and on the financing company's counterclaim for the unpaid balance on the installment contract. The appellate court reversed, finding that the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, raised factual issues sufficient for a jury on whether the warranty obligations were breached, and that a directed verdict on the counterclaim was improper because of conflicting testimony regarding the number of payments made by the buyer.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved a claim for unemployment compensation benefits under North Carolina law, where the claimant asserted she left her job due to racial discrimination by her employer, which would constitute good cause attributable to the employer under G.S. 96-14(1) and avoid disqualification. The Employment Security Commission denied benefits without making findings on the discrimination issue, the superior court reversed on the basis of other facts in evidence, and the Court of Appeals reviewed the procedural limits on that reversal. The court held that a superior court reviewing a Commission decision acts only as an appellate body, limited to checking whether supported findings sustain the legal conclusions, and may not find facts itself or rely on unspecified evidence. Because the claimant's evidence raised a genuine factual issue about racial discrimination that the Commission had not resolved, the superior court's judgment was vacated and the matter remanded with directions for the Commission to make findings on all controverted issues.

labor & employmentcivil rightsprocedure

The case involved a career teacher who applied for and received disability retirement benefits from the Montgomery County Board of Education after requesting a medical leave, following which the board treated her as a new applicant rather than reinstating her with career status under the Tenure Act. The trial court granted summary judgment to the board, but the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded. The court reasoned that a teacher's voluntary election to accept disability retirement, which requires a finding of likely permanent incapacity, terminates career status by operation of law and renders Tenure Act protections for leaves of absence or against dismissal inapplicable, but disputed issues of material fact existed as to whether the board was estopped from denying reinstatement due to alleged misrepresentations by its agent.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case involved a dispute over whether the North Carolina Board of Transportation breached a consent judgment requiring it to build a weir dam and 30-inch pipeline as compensation for taking the plaintiff's property for a highway project. The trial court denied the defendant's motion to dismiss on statute of limitations grounds and allowed expert testimony about modifications needed for the system to power a mill wheel. The appellate court held that the action was timely filed because the three-year limitations period under G.S. 1-52(1) began only upon breach, which occurred no earlier than late 1975, but ruled that the expert testimony was inadmissible because it contradicted the contract's clear terms specifying only a basic dam, pipe, and grate without additional features like filters or sweeping radius pipes. The court further found that this erroneous evidence affected the damages award and that the contract's ambiguity regarding pipe length was properly left to the jury. It therefore granted a new trial while upholding the denial of directed verdict.

propertyprocedure

The case concerned a defendant's appeal of his convictions for armed robbery and kidnapping (with a related larceny charge), challenging the sufficiency of the evidence for armed robbery, the admission of a sawed-off shotgun as evidence, the trial court's jury instructions on kidnapping regarding consent and timing, and alleged double jeopardy violations from overlapping offenses. The court determined that the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the State, was sufficient for a rational jury to find guilt on armed robbery beyond a reasonable doubt based on the victim's testimony about being threatened with the gun and his wallet being taken. It further held there was no error in admitting the shotgun or in the jury instructions, rejected the double jeopardy claim because the offenses involved distinct elements and purposes under the statutes, affirmed the armed robbery and kidnapping judgments, and arrested judgment on the larceny conviction.

criminal lawprocedure

The case Stam v. State addressed challenges to North Carolina's funding of elective abortions via the State Abortion Fund and county taxes, including claims that a fetus qualifies as a "person" entitled to protections under Article I, Sections 1 and 19 of the state constitution, as well as questions about statutory authority for local taxation and spending on such programs. The court decided that a fetus is not a "person" under those constitutional sections and that counties have authority under statutes such as G.S. 153A-149 and G.S. 153A-255 to levy taxes and fund elective abortions for indigent women. Core reasoning included the historical intent of the constitution's framers (who extended protections from "freeman" to "person" without encompassing the unborn), common-law treatment of abortion as a misdemeanor focused on destruction of gestation rather than murder of a person, persuasive federal precedent like Maher v. Roe, and statutory interpretation confirming the programs fall within authorized social services for public assistance and poverty-related needs.

abortiontaxeshealthcare

The case involved an appeal by a licensed real estate broker whose license was revoked by the North Carolina Real Estate Licensing Board after she negotiated the sale of a house and lot owned by a corporation in which she held less than 8% of the stock. The appellant argued that the Board lacked jurisdiction because her activities fell under the statutory 'owner exemption' in G.S. Ch. 93A, which excludes owners acting with respect to their own property, and that as a shareholder she should be treated as an owner. The court affirmed the superior court's decision upholding the revocation, holding that a corporation is a distinct legal entity from its shareholders, so the appellant was not an owner entitled to the exemption and had acted instead as a sales agent. The court noted that she had not challenged the Board's factual findings that she facilitated the sale in that capacity.

business & regulatoryproperty