first prong test in North Carolina

2017As to the first prong of this test, "whether an activity is within the appropriate scope of governmental involvement and is reasonably related to communal needs may be evaluated by determining how similar the activity is to others which this Court has held to be within the permissible realm of governmental action." Maready , 342 N.C. at 722 , 467 S.E.2d at 624 .

2017As to the first prong of this test, "whether an activity is within the appropriate scope of governmental involvement and is reasonably related to communal needs may be evaluated by determining how similar the activity is to others which this Court has held to be within the permissible realm of governmental action." Maready , 342 N.C. at 722 , 467 S.E.2d at 624 .

2018Wiggins, 159 N.C.

2018Wiggins , 159 N.C.

2005In analyzing the reasonableness of the attorney's actions under the first prong of the test, "the material inquiry is whether the actions were reasonable considering the totality of the circumstances at the time of performance." State v. Gainey, 355 N.C. 73 , 112-113, 558 S.E.2d 463 , 488, certiorari. denied, 537 U.S. 896 , 154 L.

2004In analyzing the reasonableness of the attorney’s actions under the first prong of the test, “the material inquiry is whether the actions were reasonable considering the totality of the circumstances at the time of performance.” State v. Gainey, 355 N.C. 73, 112-13 , 558 S.E.2d 463, 488 , cert. denied, 537 U.S. 896 , 154 L.

2005In analyzing the reasonableness of the attorney's actions under the first prong of the test, "the material inquiry is whether the actions were reasonable considering the totality of the circumstances at the time of performance." State v. Gainey, 355 N.C. 73 , 112-113, 558 S.E.2d 463 , 488, certiorari. denied, 537 U.S. 896 , 154 L.

2004In analyzing the reasonableness of the attorney’s actions under the first prong of the test, “the material inquiry is whether the actions were reasonable considering the totality of the circumstances at the time of performance.” State v. Gainey, 355 N.C. 73, 112-13 , 558 S.E.2d 463, 488 , cert. denied, 537 U.S. 896 , 154 L.

2005In analyzing the reasonableness of the attorney's actions under the first prong of the test, "the material inquiry is whether the actions were reasonable considering the totality of the circumstances at the time of performance." State v. Gainey, 355 N.C. 73 , 112-113, 558 S.E.2d 463 , 488, certiorari. denied, 537 U.S. 896 , 154 L.

2005In analyzing the reasonableness of the attorney's actions under the first prong of the test, "the material inquiry is whether the actions were reasonable considering the totality of the circumstances at the time of performance." State v. Gainey, 355 N.C. 73 , 112-113, 558 S.E.2d 463 , 488, certiorari. denied, 537 U.S. 896 , 154 L.

2022The basic impropriety of the State’s comment, then, is only the first prong of the analysis, to be followed by a determination of “whether the argument was so grossly improper as to impede the defendant’s right to a fair trial.” Huey, 370 N.C. at 179 .

2013Nevertheless, defendant argues that this Court’s holding in State v. Treadway, 208 N.C.

2012As for the second prong of the Hinnant test, defendant has made no argument as to how his statement that he only confessed because an officer told him he would receive the death penalty if he did not confess was “reasonably pertinent to medical diagnosis or treatment.” Hinnant, 351 N.C. at 289 , 523 S.E.2d at 671 .

2012As for the second prong of the Hinnant test, defendant has made no argument as to how his statement that he only confessed because an officer told him he would receive the death penalty if he did not confess was “reasonably pertinent to medical diagnosis or treatment.” Hinnant, 351 N.C. at 289 , 523 S.E.2d at 671 .

2011Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 702(a) (2009). 2 As our Supreme Court discussed in Howerton v. Arai Helmet, Ltd., our case law has established a three-prong inquiry by which a trial court may determine the admissibility of expert testimony: “(1) Is the expert’s proffered method of proof sufficiently reliable as an area for expert testimony? (2) Is the witness testifying at trial qualified as an expert in that area of testimony? (3) Is the expert’s testimony relevant?” 358 N.C. 440, 458 , 597 S.E.2d 674, 686 (2004) (citations omitted). *165 As to the first prong of the inquiry, determining whether an expert

2011Howerton, 358 N.C. at 459 , 597 S.E.2d at 686-87 .

2007Id., 166 N.C.App. at 37 , 600 S.E.2d at 885 ; See also N.C.

2007Id., 166 N.C.App. at 37 , 600 S.E.2d at 885 ; See also N.C.

2005“Generally, when a trial court rules that the defendant has failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination, this Court’s review is limited to a determination of whether the trial court erred in this respect.” State v. Bell, 359 N.C. 1, 12 , 603 S.E.2d 93, 102 (2004), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 161 L.

2004As was stated in Tozer v. LTV Corp., 792 F.2d 403 (4th Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 487 U.S. 1233 , 101 L.

2004As was stated in Tozer v. LTV Corp., 792 F.2d 403 (4th Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 487 U.S. 1233 , 101 L.

2004As was stated in Tozer v. LTV Corp., 792 F.2d 403 (4th Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 487 U.S. 1233 , 101 L.

2004App. at 137 , 554 S.E.2d at 678 . *477 The first prong of the analysis is satisfied as the parties clearly have an agreement to arbitrate pursuant to the SOMA employment contract.

2003State v. Smith, 328 N.C. 99 , 400 S.E.2d 712 (1991).

2003State v. Smith, 328 N.C. 99 , 400 S.E.2d 712 (1991).

2002Id. at 563 , 215 S.E.2d at 762 .

2002Id. at 563 , 215 S.E.2d at 762 .

2001Id. (quoting *340 Madison Cablevision, 325 N.C. at 646 , 386 S.E.2d at 207 ).

2001Id. (quoting *340 Madison Cablevision, 325 N.C. at 646 , 386 S.E.2d at 207 ).

2001When, as here, the first prong of the analysis “is answered in the negative, we need proceed no further.” Hannah, 312 N.C. at 290 , 322 S.E.2d at 151 .

2001When, as here, the first prong of the analysis “is answered in the negative, we need proceed no further.” Hannah, 312 N.C. at 290 , 322 S.E.2d at 151 .