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

The case involved a workers' compensation claim by plaintiff Wood against employer J. P. Stevens & Co. for byssinosis allegedly caused by cotton dust exposure, with the Industrial Commission dismissing the claim on the ground that the 1958 version of G.S. 97-53(13) did not cover the disease and the Court of Appeals affirming. The North Carolina Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding that the Commission must first determine the date of the claimant's disablement to identify the governing version of the statute and must hear evidence and make findings on the nature and characteristics of byssinosis rather than relying on assumptions or judicial notice. The court reasoned that whether the illness falls within the statutory definition of an occupational disease presents a mixed question of fact and law, that the applicable law is the version in effect at the time of disablement, and that expert testimony on technical terms may be considered.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case concerned whether the dependents of a lab technician who died from serum hepatitis contracted at Duke Medical Center could recover workers' compensation death benefits as an occupational disease. The Court of Appeals had ruled against the claim under the pre-1971 statute because no specific accident was identified and the disease was not on the scheduled list. The Supreme Court held that the dependents' separate right to benefits arises only at the employee's death, so the amended 1971 version of G.S. 97-53(13) applies, which covers diseases characteristic of the particular employment. It further held that the 1973 amendments increasing benefit amounts also govern, and therefore reversed and remanded for payment of the award.

labor & employmentprocedure

In State v. Phillips, defendants convicted of arson challenged the trial court's denial of their motion to dismiss the indictment, arguing it was based solely on perjured grand jury testimony from the victim witness, as well as the court's jury instruction regarding a co-defendant's grant of immunity. The court held that the motion was properly denied because the record showed no willful perjury by the witness, whose assumptions were later corroborated at trial, and because the motion was untimely under G.S. 15A-952(c) and common-law practice, making it a matter of the trial judge's unreviewable discretion. The court further ruled that defendants lacked standing to contest the validity of the immunity grant to the witness, as the privilege against self-incrimination is personal, and found no prejudice from the related jury instruction. The opinion concluded that the trial was free from prejudicial error.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Yellorday, defendants appealed their convictions for burglary and robbery, challenging the denial of their motions for nonsuit, the admission of evidence regarding a prior robbery of the victims one month earlier, and various rulings on the admissibility of testimony from the victims and law enforcement officers. The court held that the State's evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, was sufficient to support the charges and that the prior robbery was properly admitted to establish a common plan or scheme because both incidents occurred at the same residence on the day the victim received his Social Security check. The court further ruled that other evidentiary issues, including questions about an absent witness and minor inconsistencies in testimony, either did not constitute error or were not prejudicial when considered in the context of the full trial. The court therefore found no prejudicial error and affirmed the judgment.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved defendant Connley, who was convicted of first-degree murder of a Virginia State patrolman at a roadblock and sentenced to life imprisonment. The North Carolina Supreme Court had previously ordered a new trial on the ground that the defendant's incriminating statements during in-custody interrogation were improperly admitted because he had not specifically waived his right to counsel under Miranda. After the U.S. Supreme Court vacated that ruling and remanded for reconsideration in light of North Carolina v. Butler, which clarified that an express waiver is not always required, the court reevaluated the record. It found that the defendant's actions and words, including his statement that he understood his rights but would not sign the form and his coherent responses to questions, supported a knowing and voluntary waiver, making the statements admissible and the trial free of error.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure

The case involved a dispute between a divorcing husband and wife over ownership of a farm that the husband's mother had conveyed to him alone after the couple agreed to move there, pay off the mortgage, and hold the property jointly. The wife contributed labor on the farm and earnings from off-farm work to cover half the mortgage and other expenses, relying on the joint-ownership promise, while the husband took title without her knowledge. The North Carolina Supreme Court held that these facts established a constructive trust in the wife's favor because the husband breached the confidential marital relationship, and it rejected the husband's claims of insufficient evidence and a statute-of-limitations bar. The court reversed the Court of Appeals' award of a new trial and reinstated the trial court's judgment recognizing the wife's interest.

family lawproperty

The case concerned whether North Carolina's intestate succession laws, which set specific requirements for an illegitimate child to inherit from their father, violated the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The court examined statutes allowing inheritance through judicial paternity determination, written acknowledgment by the father, or legitimation by marriage, along with notice to the estate. It distinguished these from an Illinois law struck down in Trimble v. Gordon, noting that North Carolina's provisions provided multiple avenues to establish paternity without requiring marriage to the mother. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Lalli v. Lalli, the court upheld the statutes as constitutional because they were substantially related to the state's interest in efficient estate administration and accurate proof of paternity.

family lawcivil rights

The case was a criminal appeal by a defendant convicted of second-degree murder, challenging the trial court's rulings on several motions and jury instructions. The defendant sought disclosure of any criminal or impeaching information about the state's key witness, a motion for nonsuit at the close of evidence, a recess to locate an alleged eyewitness, and an instruction on the lesser-included offense of voluntary manslaughter. The court ruled that North Carolina law does not require disclosure of a witness's criminal record absent a due process violation under federal standards, that the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict of second-degree murder, that the trial judge did not abuse discretion in denying the recess, and that no evidence supported instructing on voluntary manslaughter because all testimony indicated either the defendant was not the killer or the killing was intentional with a deadly weapon. All assignments of error were overruled, resulting in a finding of no error in the conviction.

criminal lawprocedure

This case concerned whether a childless surviving successive spouse could dissent from her deceased husband's will under North Carolina statutes in effect at his death in 1975. The trial court and Court of Appeals had denied the right to dissent, interpreting the comparison to the intestate share in light of the reduced share a successive spouse would receive upon dissent. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that G.S. 30-1(a)(1) plainly requires comparing the value of provisions under and outside the will to the full intestate share under the Intestate Succession Act, without adjustment for the successive-spouse limitations in G.S. 30-3(b), and that the 1975 amendment adding a specific provision for such cases did not apply retroactively.

family lawproperty

This case involved a workers' compensation claim for the death of a 15-year-old employee who drowned in a lake during his lunch break while working at Bonclarken Assembly. The Industrial Commission awarded benefits, finding the death arose out of and in the course of employment, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The North Carolina Supreme Court reversed, holding that the drowning did not qualify because the employee violated specific instructions by swimming when the lifeguard was off duty and without permission, making it an independent recreational activity unrelated to his grass-cutting duties with no causal connection to his employment.

labor & employment

In State v. Scott, the defendant faced a murder charge supported solely by circumstantial evidence consisting of a thumbprint on a metal box inside the victim's home. The trial court denied the defendant's motion for judgment of nonsuit, but the Supreme Court of North Carolina reversed that ruling on appeal. The court determined that the State's evidence was insufficient because the victim's niece, who testified she had never seen the defendant at the home, was absent during weekdays and thus could not establish that the print had been left only at the time of the crime rather than during a possible earlier lawful visit. The core reasoning was that fingerprint evidence requires substantial accompanying proof that it could only have been impressed during commission of the offense to withstand a nonsuit motion, and absent that the case rested on mere suspicion.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a district court judge facing removal proceedings before the Judicial Standards Commission for alleged willful misconduct in the handling of criminal cases. Formal proceedings were initiated and served on the judge two days before his resignation took effect, prompting a dispute over whether the resignation ended the Commission's and Supreme Court's jurisdiction. The court held that jurisdiction had attached prior to the resignation and was not divested by it, allowing the matter to proceed to a full adjudication. After finding the misconduct proven by clear and convincing evidence following due process, the court ordered the judge's removal, which carried the statutory consequence of disqualification from future judicial office.

procedurecriminal law

The case involved four defendants charged with armed robbery and related offenses after a shooting and theft at Jackson's grocery store in North Carolina. The trial court denied the defendants' motions for nonsuit at the close of evidence, and the Supreme Court reviewed whether the State's evidence was sufficient to submit the charges to the jury. The court upheld the denial as to all defendants, finding ample evidence placing Watkins and Brown at the scene and showing they committed the crimes. As to Haywood and Covington, the court held that evidence of their presence near the store in a position to assist, combined with their joint travel and friendship with the perpetrators, permitted the inference that they were acting in concert as aiders and abettors rather than mere bystanders, distinguishing the case from precedents requiring more direct proof of participation.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved plaintiff Cynthia Woods seeking additional medical payments coverage under two separate automobile insurance policies (Spencer and Woods) issued by Nationwide after she was injured in an accident while driving one of the insured vehicles. The policies each contained an 'apply separately' clause and covered multiple vehicles for which separate premiums had been paid, and the dispute centered on whether the per-vehicle medical payments limits could be stacked or aggregated. The court affirmed the lower court's ruling denying stacking under the Spencer policy, which was identical to a policy interpreted in a prior case, but reversed as to the Woods policy, holding that its distinct language created an ambiguity that must be resolved against the insurer. As a result, the plaintiff was entitled to recover an additional $500 under the Woods policy based on the number of vehicles insured.

business & regulatory