DOCSLIB.ORG

Advance Sheets Supreme Court

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Advance Sheets Supreme Court 373 N.C.—No. 5 Pages 292-596 STATE BAR OFFICERS; STATE BAR STANDING COMMITTEES AND 373 N.C.—No. 5 BOARDS; MODEL BYLAWS FOR JUDICIAL DISTRICT BARS; DISCIPLINE AND DISABILITY OF ATTORNEYS; JUDICIAL DISTRICT GRIEVANCE COMMITTEES; PRACTICAL TRAINING OF LAW STUDENTS; FEE DISPUTE RESOLUTION; CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION; RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT ADVANCE SHEETS OF CASES ARGUED AND DETERMINED IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA Pages 292-596 MAY 20, 2020 MAILING ADDRESS: The Judicial Department P. O. Box 2170, Raleigh, N. C. 27602-2170 COMMERCIAL PRINTING COMPANY PRINTERS TO THE SUPREME COURT AND THE COURT OF APPEALS THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA Chief Justice CHERI BEASLEY Associate Justices PAUL MARTIN NEWBY MICHAEL R. MORGAN ROBIN E. HUDSON ANITA EARLS SAMUEL J. ERVIN, IV MARK DAVIS Former Chief Justices RHODA B. BILLINGS JAMES G. EXUM, JR. BURLEY B. MITCHELL, JR. HENRY E. FRYE I. BEVERLY LAKE, JR. SARAH PARKER MARK D. MARTIN Former Justices ROBERT R. BROWNING GEORGE L. WAINWRIGHT, JR. J. PHIL CARLTON EDWARD THOMAS BRADY WILLIS P. WHICHARD PATRICIA TIMMONS-GOODSON JAMES A. WYNN, JR. ROBERT N. HUNTER, JR. FRANKLIN E. FREEMAN, JR. ROBERT H. EDMUNDS, JR. G. K. BUTTERFIELD, JR. BARBARA A. JACKSON ROBERT F. ORR Clerk AMY L. FUNDERBURK Librarian THOMAS P. DAVIS i ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS Director MCKINLEY WOOTEN1 Assistant Director DAVID F. HOKE OFFICE OF APPELLATE DIVISION REPORTER HARRY JAMES HUTCHESON JENNIFER C. PETERSON ALYSSA M. CHEN 1Appointed 2 March 2020. ii SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA CASES REPORTED 28 FEBRUARY 2020 Accardi v. Hartford Underwriters Rouse v. Forsyth Cty. Dep’t Ins. Co. 292 Soc. Servs. 400 Beem USA Ltd.-Liab. Ltd. P’ship SciGrip, Inc. v. Osae................ 409 v. Grax Consulting LLC .......... 297 State v. Alonzo .................... 437 Boles v. Town of Oak Island ........ 308 State v. Carey ..................... 445 Cardiorentis AG v. Iqvia Ltd. ........ 309 State v. Carver .................... 453 City of Charlotte v. Univ. Fin. State v. Hoyle ..................... 454 Props., LLC .................... 325 State v. Mercer .................... 459 Cogdill v. Sylva Supply Co., Inc. ..... 326 State v. Nobles .................... 471 In re D.W.P. ...................... 327 State v. Reed ..................... 498 In re J.M. ........................ 352 State v. Seam ..................... 529 In re S.E. ......................... 360 State v. Simpkins .................. 530 In re Stone ....................... 368 Vizant Techs., LLC v. YRC Jones v. Jones .................... 381 Worldwide, Inc. ................ 549 N.C. Dep’t of Revenue v. Graybar Elec. Co. 382 ORDERS In re C.N. ........................ 568 State v. Carey ..................... 572 In re R.A.B. ...................... 569 State v. Clegg ..................... 573 In re S.D.C. ....................... 570 State v. Grooms ................... 574 State v. Betts ..................... 571 State v. Walton .................... 576 PETITIONS FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW UNDER G.S. 7A-31 Bethesda Rd. Partners, LLC Glaize v. Glaize ................... 585 v. Strachan .................... 588 Hamlet H.M.A., LLC v. Hernandez ... 590 Brawley v. Sherrill . 587 In re A.J.P........................ 593 Cardiorentis AG v. Iqvia Ltd. In re C.N......................... 588 & Iqvia RDS, Inc................ 581 In re D.M. ....................... 585 Carney v. Wake Cty. In re E.B. ........................ 590 Sheriff’s Office................. 579 In re E.C. ........................ 589 Cheryl Lloyd Humphrey Land Inv. Co., In re Eldridge . 594 LLC v. Resco Prods., Inc. ........ 585 In re H.A.L. ...................... 587 Chisum v. Campagna.............. 589 In re Hinton ..................... 592 Cooper v. Berger ................. 584 In re J.D. ........................ 586 Crago v. Crago ................... 592 In re J.H. ........................ 593 Crazie Overstock Promotions, LLC In re J.L. ........................ 583 v. State of NC.................. 586 In re K.M.W. ..................... 586 Daughtridge v. Tanager Land, LLC ... 585 In re K.S.D-F...................... 595 Donnell-Smith v. McLean .......... 580 In re L.E.W. ...................... 588 Fagundes v. Ammons Dev. In re N.G......................... 583 Grp., Inc. ..................... 579 In re O.K.W....................... 579 Galeas-Menchu v. Daniels.......... 582 In re O.W.D.A..................... 589 Gayle v. Gayle.................... 577 In re Q.P.W. ...................... 594 iii In re R.A.B. ...................... 589 State v. Ellis ..................... 586 In re S.D.C. ...................... 581 State v. Ferrari ................... 582 In re S.E.T. ...................... 578 State v. Frank . 592 In re S.M.M....................... 583 State v. Frazier . 578 In re Sigler ...................... 578 State v. Friend ................... 586 In re T.G.H. ...................... 595 State v. Fuller . 592 In re W.I.M. ...................... 590 State v. Gatling ................... 580 James v. Rabbani . 580 State v. Gilmore .................. 578 Kanish, Inc. v. Taylor .............. 579 State v. Goins .................... 579 Lake v. State Health Plan For Teachers State v. Gonzalez ................. 579 & State Emps. ................. 591 State v. Gould .................... 580 Lloyd v. Bailey ................... 581 State v. Graham .................. 577 Loyd v. Loyd . 589 State v. Graham .................. 591 Macias v. BSI Assocs., Inc. ......... 594 State v. Griffin.................... 592 McLaughlin v. Bailey . 581 State v. Grooms .................. 578 McLean v. Baker Sand & Gravel..... 590 State v. Harvin ................... 595 Morguard Lodge Apartments, LLC State v. Hazelwood ............... 596 v. Follum ..................... 595 State v. Holloman................. 592 Neal v. Hooks . 588 State v. Howard .................. 587 Ochsner v. N.C. Dep’t of Revenue ... 595 State v. Jackson .................. 593 Perry v. Dever.................... 594 State v. Johnson .................. 577 Ragland v. N.C. Dep’t of State v. Kimble . 590 Pub. Instruction ............... 594 State v. Kluttz . 594 Ragland v. Nash-Rocky Mount Bd. State v. Lindsey .................. 593 of Educ. ...................... 582 State v. Lockhart ................. 581 Riopelle v. Riopelle ............... 579 State v. Locklear.................. 592 Robinson v. Allen................. 581 State v. Long ..................... 596 Sandhill Amusements, Inc. v. Sheriff State v. Luckey ................... 590 of Onslow Cty.................. 587 State v. Marshall.................. 581 Sea Watch at Kure Beach Homeowners’ State v. Martens .................. 580 Ass’n, Inc. v. Fiorentino............ 593 State v. Meader................... 579 State ex rel. City of Albemarle State v. Miles..................... 588 v. Nance ...................... 585 State v. Moreno .................. 593 State ex rel. Utils. Comm’n State v. Mylett.................... 577 v. Attorney Gen. ............... 582 State v. Newell ................... 582 State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. State v. Nieves ................... 594 v. Don’s Trash Co., Inc........... 589 State v. Schalow.................. 578 State v. Allen..................... 578 State v. Sevilla-Briones ............ 582 State v. Allen..................... 580 State v. Stevens .................. 583 State v. Ammons ................. 589 State v. Sutton ................... 578 State v. Arnold ................... 590 State v. Thorne ................... 590 State v. Baker . 595 State v. Walton ................... 584 State v. Betts..................... 588 State v. Warden................... 595 State v. Blackwell................. 577 State v. Washington . 579 State v. Brown ................... 581 State v. Williams.................. 590 State v. Cagle .................... 583 State v. Williams.................. 592 State v. Campbell ................. 582 State v. Willis .................... 578 State v. Carey .................... 583 State v. Wyche ................... 594 State v. Charles................... 584 State v. Yourse ................... 587 State v. Clegg .................... 580 Unger v. Unger . 593 State v. Collington ................ 583 Walsh v. Cornerstone Health State v. Davis .................... 596 Care, P.A. ..................... 585 iv Whitmore v. Daniels .............. 593 Woodard v. NC Dep’t Winston Affordable Hous., L.L.C. of Commerce.................. 589 v. Roberts..................... 582 Young v. Bailey ................... 586 HEADNOTE INDEX APPEAL AND ERROR Discretionary review—issues not presented in petitions—The Supreme Court declined to address defendant’s argument on an issue that was not presented in either of the parties’ petitions for discretionary review. State v. Alonzo, 437. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Eighth Amendment—opportunity for parole—not ripe for review— Defendant’s argument that he had no opportunity for parole was not ripe for review where he had not yet reached parole eligibility. State v. Seam, 529. Right to counsel—forfeiture—egregious conduct by defendant—The Supreme Court recognized that a criminal defendant may forfeit the right to counsel by com- mitting egregious acts that frustrate the legal process. In a case involving charges related to a defendant’s failure to maintain a valid driver’s license, defendant’s con- duct was not so egregiously disruptive as to forfeit his right to counsel, and the failure of the trial court to conduct the colloquy in N.C.G.S. § 15A-1242 before allow- ing defendant to proceed pro se violated defendant’s constitutional
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 01476-Cleveland Gen Election
    SAMPLE BALLOT BS1/110 OFFICIAL BALLOT FOR THE GENERAL ELECTION CLEVELAND COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA NOVEMBER 2, 2004 GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS TO VOTE, COMPLETE THE ARROW POINTING TO YOUR CHOICE, LIKE THIS: L READ ALL OTHER INSTRUCTIONS CAREFULLY BEFORE VOTING!!!! REMEMBER: VOTE BOTH SIDES OF THIS BALLOT FOR PRESIDENT AND INSTRUCTIONS TO VOTER a. To vote for all candidates of one party (a FOR LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE straight party ticket), complete the arrow at UNITED STATES the right of the party for whose candidates BEVERLY EAVES PERDUE DEM you wish to vote. INSTRUCTIONS TO VOTER b. You may vote a split ticket by not completing JIM SNYDER REP a. To vote this office, complete the arrow at the the arrow at the right of the party, but by com- right of the Political Party for whose candi- pleting the arrow at the right of the name of CHRISTOPHER COLE LIB dates you wish to vote. each candidate for whom you wish to vote. b. A vote for names of a Political Party’s candi- c. You may also vote a split ticket by completing dates for President and Vice-President is a the arrow at the right of the party and then vote for the Electors of that party, the names completing the arrow to the right of the name FOR ATTORNEY GENERAL of whom are on file with the Secretary of State. of any candidate you choose of a different c. If you wish to write in the name of a qualified party. In any multi-seat race where an arrow ROY COOPER DEM write-in candidate, you must write the name in is completed to the right of a party and you the blank space provided and complete the vote for candidates of another party, you JOE KNOTT REP arrow at the right of the name in order for your must also complete the arrow to the right of vote to count.
    [Show full text]
  • The Judicial Branch North Carolina’S Court System Had Many Levels Before the Judicial Branch Underwent Comprehensive Reorganization in the Late 1960S
    The Judicial Branch North Carolina’s court system had many levels before the judicial branch underwent comprehensive reorganization in the late 1960s. Statewide, the N.C. Supreme Court had appellate jurisdiction, while the Superior Court had general trial jurisdiction. Hundreds of Recorder’s Courts, Domestic Relations Courts, Mayor’s Courts, County Courts and Justice of the Peace Courts created by the General Assembly existed at the local level, almost every one individually structured to meet the specific needs of the towns and counties they served. Some of these local courts stayed in session on a nearly full-time basis; others convened for only an hour or two a week. Full-time judges presided over a handful of the local courts, although most were not full-time. Some local courts had judges who had been trained as lawyers. Many, however, made do with lay judges who spent most of their time working in other careers. Salaries for judges and the overall administrative costs varied from court to court, sometimes differing even within the same county. In some instances, such as justices of the peace, court officials were compensated by the fees they exacted and they provided their own facilities. As early as 1955, certain citizens recognized the need for professionalizing and streamlining the court system in North Carolina. At the suggestion of Governor Luther Hodges and Chief Justice M.V. Barnhill, the North Carolina Bar Association sponsored an in-depth study that ultimately resulted in the restructuring of the court system. Implementing the new structure, however, required amending Article IV of the State Constitution.
    [Show full text]
  • An Analysis of the Systemic Problems Regarding Foreign Language Interpretation in the North Carolina Court System and Potential Solutions
    An Analysis of the Systemic Problems Regarding Foreign Language Interpretation in the North Carolina Court System and Potential Solutions Prepared by: Emily Kirby, Sarah Long, and Sonal Raja University of North Carolina School of Law Immigration and Human Rights Policy Clinic Faculty Advisor: Deborah Weissman May 5, 2010 An Analysis of the Systemic Problems Regarding Foreign Language Interpretation in the North Carolina Court System and Potential Solutions Emily Kirby Deborah M. Weissman Sonal Raja Reef C. Ivey II Distinguished Professor of Law Sarah Long Director of Clinical Programs UNC‐CH Law Students http://www.law.unc.edu/documents/clinical programs/foreignlanguageinterpretationproblemsnc.pdf ii Table of Contents Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................................... 1 Policy Recommendations .......................................................................................................................... 5 Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 8 PART ONE: An Analysis of the Law Regarding Access to the Courts for Non‐English Speakers .............. 10 I. Federal Law ........................................................................................................................... 10 A. Federal Criminal Case Law ..............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Published United States Court of Appeals for The
    PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT FOOD LION, INCORPORATED, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CAPITAL CITIES/ABC, INC.; LYNNE LITT, a/k/a Lynne Neufes; ABC HOLDING COMPANY; AMERICAN BROADCASTING COMPANIES, INCORPORATED; RICHARD N. KAPLAN; IRA ROSEN; SUSAN BARNETT, Defendants-Appellants, ADVANCE PUBLICATIONS, INCORPORATED; ASSOCIATED PRESS; THE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN PUBLISHERS; CBS BROADCASTING, INCORPORATED; CABLE NEWS No. 97-2492 NETWORK, INCORPORATED; GANNETT COMPANY, INCORPORATED; THE HEARST CORPORATION; KING WORLD PRODUCTIONS, INCORPORATED; MCCLATCHY NEWSPAPERS, INCORPORATED; THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BROADCASTERS; NATIONAL BROADCASTING COMPANY, INCORPORATED; THE NEWSPAPER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA; NATIONAL PUBLIC RADIO, INCORPORATED; THE NEW YORK TIMES COMPANY; THE RADIO-TELEVISION NEWS DIRECTORS ASSOCIATION; THE REPORTERS COMMITTEE FOR FREEDOM OF THE PRESS; INVESTIGATIVE REPORTERS; EDITORS, INCORPORATED; NATIONAL GROCERS ASSOCIATION; INTERNATIONAL MASS RETAIL ASSOCIATION; WILLIAM E. LEE; JOHN DEMOTT; ROBERT ELLIS SMITH; MIKE ROSEN; ACCURACY IN MEDIA; MEDIA RESEARCH CENTER; ATLANTIC LEGAL FOUNDATION; SOUTHEASTERN LEGAL FOUNDATION, Amici Curiae. FOOD LION, INCORPORATED, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CAPITAL CITIES/ABC, INC.; LYNNE LITT, a/k/a Lynne Neufes; ABC HOLDING COMPANY; AMERICAN BROADCASTING COMPANIES, INCORPORATED; RICHARD N. KAPLAN; IRA ROSEN; SUSAN BARNETT, No. 97-2564 Defendants-Appellees, ADVANCE PUBLICATIONS, INCORPORATED; ASSOCIATED PRESS; THE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN PUBLISHERS; CBS BROADCASTING, INCORPORATED;
    [Show full text]
  • North Carolina Trial Judges'
    NORTH CAROLINA TRIAL JUDGES’ BENCH BOOK DISTRICT COURT VOLUME 1 FAMILY LAW 2019 Edition Chapter 3 Child Support In cooperation with the School of Government, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill by Cheryl D. Howell and Jan S. Simmons This chapter is one of ten chapters in North Carolina Trial Judges’ Bench Book, ISBN 978-1-56011-957-9. Preparation of this bench book was made possible by funding from the North Carolina Administrative Office of the Courts, as administered by the School of Government. Copyright © 2019 School of Government, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Chapter 3: Child Support Part 1. Liability and Amount / 1 Part 2. Procedure for Initial Child Support Orders / 109 Part 3. Modification of Child Support Orders / 193 Part 4. Enforcement of Child Support Orders / 241 Checklists Findings for Initial Child Support / 363 Findings for Modification of Support / 365 Findings for Attorney Fees / 365 blank TOC This page intentionally left blank Replacement 9/20/2018 chapter opening 3 TOC Chapter 3: Child Support Part 1. Liability and Amount I. Liability for Child Support . 3 D . Factors That May Justify Deviation . 59 A . Parents Are Primarily Liable for Support . .. 3 E . Procedure Upon Request for Deviation . 61 B . Grandparents Are Not Responsible for Support of a F . Findings Required When Court Allows a Request for Grandchild Except in Limited Circumstances . 5 Deviation . 62 C . Stepparents Are Not Responsible for Support of a G . Findings Required When Court Does Not Deviate or Stepchild Except in Limited Circumstances . 6 Denies a Request for Deviation .
    [Show full text]
  • MEETING AGENDA Scheduled Attendees
    DRAFT MEETING AGENDA Date: November 25, 2020 Time: 1:00 PM Location: Board of Elections Type: Special Scheduled Attendees: Thomas C. Pollard, Chair Rae Hunter-Havens, Elections Director Evelyn D. Adger, Secretary Joan Geiszler-Ludlum, Administrative Technician Jonathan W. Washburn, Member Caroline Dawkins, Elections Program & Outreach Derrick R. Miller, Member Coordinator Russ C. Bryan, Member Visitor(s): Sheryl Kelly, Assistant County Manager AGENDA ITEMS 1. Meeting Opening a. Call to Order b. Pledge of Allegiance c. Approval of Agenda 2. General Discussion Other Elections-Related Matters 3. New Business Hearing on Election Protest 4. Adjournment *Agenda packets are sent via email in advance of meetings. Item # 1c Special Meeting New Hanover County Board of Elections November 25, 2020 Subject: Approval of Agenda Summary: N/A Board Action Required: Staff recommends approval Item # 2 Special Meeting New Hanover County Board of Elections November 25, 2020 Subject: General Discussion Summary: This is an opportunity for discussion on other elections-related matters not included in the meeting agenda. Board Action Required: Discuss as necessary Item # 3a Special Meeting New Hanover County Board of Elections November 20, 2020 Subject: Hearing on Election Protest Applicable Statutes and/or Rules N.C. Gen. Stat § 163-182.10; 08 NCAC 02 .0110; 08 NCAC 02 .0114(a) Summary: On November 17, 2020, the New Hanover County Board of Elections, and 89 other counties, received an election protest regarding vote count and tabulation, and violation of election law or irregularity, consistent with N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 163-182.9(b)(4)(a) and 163-182.9(b)(4)(c).
    [Show full text]
  • Chief Justices State Court Administrators
    Conference of CHIEF JUSTICES Conference of STATE COURT ADMINISTRATORS *:* *:* 1995 *:* 1995 Annual Meeting Monterey, California Conference of Conference of Chief Justices State Court Administrators Allen, Frederic W. Vermont Baldwin, Robert N. Virginia Anderson, E. Riley Tennessee Bauermeister, Mercedes M. Puerto Rico Andr&Garcia, Jose A. Puerto Rico Berson, Steven V. Colorado Baca, Joseph F. New Mexico Buenger, Michael L. South Dakota Benham, Robert Georgia Byers, David K. Arizona Bilandic, Michael A. Illinois Cetrulo, Don Kentucky Brickley, James H. Michigan Chenovick, Patrick A. Montana Brock, David A. New Hampshire Click, Kingsley W. Oregon Calogero, Pascal E, Jr. Louisiana Collins, Hugh M. Louisiana Carrico, Harry L. Virginia Conyers, Howard W. Oklahoma Carson, Wallace P., Jr. Oregon Dosal, Sue K. Minnesota Durham, Barbara Washington Doss, Robert L., Jr. Georgia Feldman, Stanley G. Arizona Drennan, James C. North Carolina Finney, Ernest A., Jr. South Carolina Duncan, Robert L. Wyoming Golden, Michael Wyoming Ferrell, Charles E. Tennessee Grimes, Stephen H. Florida Gilmore, Oliver Alabama Hawkins, Armis E. Mississippi Gingerich, James D. Arkansas Heffernan, Nathan S. Wisconsin Glessner, James T. Maine Hodge, Verne A. Virgin Islands Greenwood, Pamela T. Utah Holmes, Richard W. Kansas Groundland, Lowell L. Delaware Holstein, John C. Missouri Hall, Marilyn K. Michigan Holt, Jack, Jr. Arkansas Hammond, Ulysses B. District of Columbia Hornsby, Sonny Alabama Harrall, Robert C. Rhode Island Johnson, Charles A. 0k 1ah o m a Irwin, John J., Jr. Massachusetts Kaye, Judith S. New York Judice, C. Raymond Texas Keith, A. M. (Sandy) Minnesota Kanter, Deborah New Mexico Kruse, F. Michael American Samoa Kotzan, Bruce A. Indiana Lamorena, Albert0 C., 111 Guam Larkin, Ronald L.
    [Show full text]
  • Judicial Reform As a Tug of War: How Ideological Differences Between Politicians and the Bar Explain Attempts at Judicial Reform
    Bonica & Sen (Do Not Delete) 11/14/2017 1:27 PM Judicial Reform as a Tug of War: How Ideological Differences Between Politicians and the Bar Explain Attempts at Judicial Reform Adam Bonica* Maya Sen** What predicts attempts at judicial reform? We develop a broad, generalizable framework that both explains and predicts attempts at judicial reform. Specifically, we explore the political tug of war created by the polarization between the bar and political actors, in tandem with existing judicial selection mechanisms. The more liberal the bar and the more conservative political actors, the greater the incentive political actors will have to introduce ideology into judicial selection. (And, vice versa, the more conservative the bar and the more liberal political actors, the greater incentive political actors will have to introduce ideology into judicial selection.) Understanding this dynamic, we argue, is key to both explaining and predicting attempts at judicial reform. For example, under most ideological configurations, conservatives will, depending on how liberal they perceive the bar to be, push reform efforts toward partisan elections and executive appointments, while liberals will work to maintain merit-oriented commissions. We explore the contours of this predictive framework with three in-depth, illustrative case studies: Florida in 2001, Kansas in the 2010s, and North Carolina in 2016. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................... 1782 I. JUDICIAL REFORM BACKGROUND ..................................... 1784 A. Independence and Establishment of American Courts .................................................................. 1784 * Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science, Stanford University. Email: [email protected]. Web: http://www.stanford.edu/~bonica [https://perma.cc/C5XD-XB5C]. ** Associate Professor, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University.
    [Show full text]
  • Alternative Dispute Resolution in North Carolina
    ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION IN NORTH CAROLINA ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION IN NORTH CAROLINA A New Civil Procedure Second Edition Editor Elizabeth P. Manley Assistant Editors Frank C. Laney, Lynn P. Roundtree, and Catherine Brohaugh Revised from the First Edition, edited by Jacqueline R. Clare Review Group of the ADR Book Committee (Joint Committee of the North Carolina Bar Association Dispute Resolution Section and the North Carolina Dispute Resolution Commission) Copyright © 2012 by the North Carolina Bar Foundation and the North Carolina Dispute Resolution Commission. Design & production by BW&A Books, Inc. Manufactured in the United States of America. Library of Congress Control Number: 2012945497 ISBN: 978-0-9858889-09 The first edition was originally published in 2003, and reprinted in 2005. The second edition was published in 2012 in both print and e-book formats. This graphic of a multi-door courthouse, designed by Bobby Gill of the North Carolina Bar Association, first appeared in June 1985 on the cover of Dispute Resolution, A Task Force Report by the North Carolina Bar Foundation. The design represents the integration of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) procedures into the North Carolina justice system. Although the signs above each door depict litigation, arbitration, and mediation as the directions a dispute may take, the choices available to the parties have evolved since this graphic was introduced to provide for a wider array of alternatives for resolving disputes. This book is dedicated to former North Carolina Supreme Court CHIEF JUSTICE JamES G. EXUM, JR., without whose leadership many of the events herein would not have occurred, and CARMON J.
    [Show full text]
  • The Ali Reporter Summer 2021 3
    THE QUARTERLY NEWSLETTER OF THE AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE VOLUME 43 NUMBER 3 SUMMER 2021 THE DIRECTOR’S LETTER BY ACTIONS TAKEN AT RICHARD L. REVESZ THE ANNUAL MEETING The ALI and This year’s Annual Meeting was held on May 17 to 18 and June 7 to 8. Below is a summary of the actions taken during both segments. All approvals by the Pandemic the membership at the Annual Meeting are subject to the discussion at the Meeting and the usual editorial prerogative. The last 18 months have transformed the United States (and the rest of the world) in MONDAY, MAY 17 ways that were unimaginable in early 2020. A virulent pandemic has claimed more than THE LAW OF AMERICAN INDIANS 600,000 lives in our country alone. At the same Presented for membership approval was a Proposed Final Draft that contains time, we suffered major economic dislocations, the entire project: Chapter 1, Federal–Tribal Relations; Chapter 2, Tribal saw the cruel consequences of racial inequality, Authority; Chapter 3, State–Tribal Relations; Chapter 4, Tribal Economic witnessed the significant challenges faced by Development; Chapter 5, Indian Country Criminal Jurisdiction; and Chapter 6, our democratic institutions, and experienced Natural Resources. Membership voted to approve the Proposed Final Draft, unprecedented fires and other pernicious marking the completion of this project. See page 6 for additional information. consequences of climate change. Many of us have experienced the ravages of the pandemic COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT FOR ORGANIZATIONS in intensely personal ways, through the loss of Tentative Draft No. 2 contains Chapter 1, Definitions, some of which were family members, friends, and colleagues, and already approved at the 2019 Annual Meeting, Chapter 4, Compliance Risk worried about the future of our nation.
    [Show full text]
  • OCTOBER TERM 1994 Reference Index Contents
    jnl94$ind1Ð04-04-96 12:34:32 JNLINDPGT MILES OCTOBER TERM 1994 Reference Index Contents: Page Statistics ....................................................................................... II General .......................................................................................... III Appeals ......................................................................................... III Arguments ................................................................................... III Attorneys ...................................................................................... III Briefs ............................................................................................. IV Certiorari ..................................................................................... IV Costs .............................................................................................. V Judgments and Opinions ........................................................... V Original Cases ............................................................................. V Records ......................................................................................... VI Rehearings ................................................................................... VI Rules ............................................................................................. VI Stays .............................................................................................. VI Conclusion ...................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • NOTICE MEETING of the STATE BOARD of ELECTIONS the State
    Mailing Address: P.O. Box 27255 Raleigh, NC 27611-7255 Phone: (919) 733-7173 Fax: (919) 715-0135 NOTICE MEETING OF THE STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS The State Board of Elections will hold a public meeting by teleconference on Wednesday, February 22, 2017 at 2:15 p.m. Interested members of the public may hear proceedings by dialing (562) 247-8422 (code: 128-956-572). Materials will be available at http://go.usa.gov/x9Jas. The meeting is called pursuant to the written petition of two or more members filed under G.S. § 163-20(a). TENTATIVE AGENDA Call to order Statement regarding ethics and conflicts of interest G.S. § 138A-15(e) Discussion regarding status of Cooper v. Berger & Moore (P 17-101; 16 CVS 15636) Resources: S.L. 2016-125 Motions for Summary Judgement: Plaintiff’s Brief Defendants’ Brief Adjourn Additional Resources: Motion to Dismiss State v. NAACP et al. (filed Feb. 21) Supreme Court Docket (updated Feb. 21 at 6:30PM) Petition for Writ of Certiorari (filed Dec. 27) Letter from Legislative Leadership (dated Feb. 21) 1/384 Separator Page Statement regarding 2/384 Statement regarding ethics: GS 138-15(e) In accordance with the State Government Ethics Act, it is the duty of every Board member to avoid both conflicts of interest and appearances of conflict. Does any Board member have any known conflict of interest or appearance of conflict with respect to any matters coming before the [Board] today? If so, please identify the conflict or appearance of conflict and refrain from any undue participation in the particular matter.
    [Show full text]