 |
|
 |
|
|
Access State and Federal Case Law, plus U.S. Supreme Court cases — for free!
Click on any of the case links below to view the full text of that case — for free — through lexisONE®, a legal research and news service from LexisNexis®. Login is required — registration is free!
While viewing the full text of the case, select from upgrade options to Shepardize® or view the fully-featured case on lexis.com including Core Terms, Shepard's® Signals, Case Summaries, Print Options, and more. lexisONE offers access to comprehensive content and flexible services for faster, more efficient legal research. Review our flexible LexisNexis® subscriptions offered through daily, weekly or monthly research packages.
| Fiedler v. Blue Sky Servs., NO. COA05-1315,
COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA, June 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Formyduval v. Britt, NO. COA05-584,
COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA, June 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a legal malpractice case based on an attorney's actions in a medical malpractice suit, it was error to dismiss the complaint because plaintiffs had not met the pleading requirements of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, N.C. R. Civ. P. 9(j). That rule, requiring that medical care be reviewed by an expert, applied only to medical malpractice claims.
|
|||||
| Frances L. Austin Family L.P. v. City of High Point, NO. COA05-1514,
COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA, June 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When a city had acquired an easement for a sewer line and had paid compensation to plaintiffs' predecessor in title, and later abandoned the easement and left a buried sewer pipe on the property, this did not constitute a taking. The city had paid just compensation to the predecessor in title, and plaintiffs were entitled to nothing more.
|
|||||
| Houston v. Town of Chapel Hill, NO. COA05-1461,
COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA, June 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A home owner's appeal from a town council's road closure order under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 160A-299 was properly dismissed. No evidentiary hearing was required in the superior court, the evidence before the council supported the order, and the owner was not deprived of a fair hearing because the council held public hearings before closing the road.
|
|||||
| Hyde v. Anderson, NO. COA05-1430,
COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA, June 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| In re A.J.M., NO. COA05-504,
COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA, June 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: There was overwhelming, substantive evidence that a minor child was neglected and dependent under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-101(15) because 1) the mother physically harmed the minor child by hitting her with a belt; 2) the mother failed to consistently attend assigned mental health sessions; and 3) the mother failed to regularly visit the minor child.
|
|||||
| In re A.R.H., NO. COA05-1507,
COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA, June 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trial court's findings that a child's regular pediatrician saw no reason for concern about child abuse and that there was no evidence that the parents had problems affecting their parenting ability supported its conclusion of law that no clear and convincing showing was made that the child was abused or neglected under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-805.
|
|||||
| In re B.H., NO. COA05-1271,
COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA, June 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| In re C.J.H.-D., NO. COA05-939,
COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA, June 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
