Susie Sharp

In Pipkin v. Thomas & Hill, Inc., the plaintiffs sought specific performance or damages after the defendant breached its contract to provide long-term financing for their motel-restaurant project, forcing them to refinance a construction loan at higher fluctuating interest rates. The court determined that specific performance was unavailable due to the defendant's financial inability, so the plaintiffs were entitled only to damages under contract law principles from Hadley v. Baxendale and Restatement of Contracts § 343. The core reasoning was that damages for breach of a loan commitment are measured by the cost of obtaining substitute funds plus other foreseeable unavoidable harms, provided the borrower mitigates by seeking alternatives when available, and the court specified the components of recoverable damages including additional fees and interest differentials. The court affirmed in part and reversed in part the lower court's damages assessment.

business & regulatoryproperty

In State v. Allison, the defendant appealed his first-degree murder conviction, primarily challenging the trial court's admission of a .22 caliber rifle seized from his trailer without a warrant and the refusal to instruct the jury on second-degree murder as a lesser included offense. The court conducted a voir dire on the search issue, applied Fourth Amendment and state constitutional standards for warrantless entries into a home, and weighed factors such as probable cause, exigent circumstances, and the Dorman criteria for assessing reasonableness. It upheld the seizure as lawful because officers had authority to enter and the rifle was in plain view, and it held that the uncontradicted evidence of lying in wait or felony murder precluded any instruction on a lesser degree of homicide. The court found no error in the trial proceedings and affirmed the conviction.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned two defendants charged with assaulting law enforcement officers under G.S. 14-33(b)(4), resisting officers under G.S. 14-223, communicating threats, and related offenses arising from an incident with police. The trial court instructed jurors that resisting an officer was a lesser degree of assaulting an officer, leading to acquittals on the assault charges and convictions for resisting in several cases. The North Carolina Supreme Court held that the two statutes define separate and distinct offenses with different elements and purposes—one protecting officers from injury and the other preserving order and official duties—so resisting is not a lesser included offense of assault. As a result, the court arrested the judgments on the resisting convictions tied to the assault charges while affirming the remaining convictions and sentences. The decision turned on statutory interpretation, legislative history, and the principle that a defendant cannot be convicted of an uncharged offense that is not a lesser included offense.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved Mebane Home Telephone Company's challenge to a North Carolina Utilities Commission order setting its rates under the then-applicable 'fair return on fair value' statutory standard. The Commission calculated fair value by heavily weighting the company's depreciated original cost over its replacement cost (9:1 ratio), added allowances for working capital and stock, and set a rate of return after considering the company's low-risk capital structure from REA loans. Mebane argued the Commission improperly discounted replacement cost based on its debt-equity ratio and failed to adequately account for risks in its thin equity. The court affirmed the order, holding that the statute grants the Commission broad expert discretion to weigh evidence of fair value and that its findings on both valuation and rate of return were supported by substantial competent evidence.

business & regulatory

This case concerns Dr. Smith's 1973 lawsuit against North Carolina after his dismissal as medical superintendent of a state hospital under a six-year employment contract authorized by statute. Smith claimed the State breached the contract by terminating him without cause or proper authority and that individual officials defamed him in the process. The trial court directed verdicts for all defendants, the Court of Appeals ordered summary judgment for Smith against the State on the contract claim while deeming the defamation appeal abandoned, and the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and affirmed the trial court. The court reasoned that statutory reorganization transferred dismissal authority to the Secretary of Human Resources and that cause for dismissal existed as a matter of law because Smith refused a reasonable order to produce a tape recording needed for an internal investigation. Smith's defamation claim against the individuals was not pursued on appeal.

labor & employmentproceduretorts & liability

In State v. Silhan, the defendant appealed his convictions on multiple grounds, including the denial of his motion for a special venire from another county due to pretrial publicity, the refusal to suppress identifications from a lineup conducted without counsel present, and challenges to the jury instructions and constitutionality of the kidnapping statute under G.S. 14-39. The North Carolina Supreme Court overruled all assignments of error, determining that the trial judge did not abuse discretion in denying the venue motion because evidence of community prejudice was lacking and no jurors were shown to be affected, that the defendant had validly waived his rights and the lineup was not impermissibly suggestive, and that the kidnapping charges were supported by independent acts of restraint separate from other offenses. The court affirmed the trial judgment, finding no error in the proceedings.

criminal lawprocedure