remainder hearing in North Carolina

2021In view of the fact that Harris Teeter does not appear to contend that the Commission failed to properly address the issue of physical impairment, we will focus the remainder of our analysis upon issues surrounding functional and economic obsolescence. ¶ 26 As a definitional matter, functional obsolescence is “a loss in value due to impairment of functional capacity . . . inherent in the property itself” stemming from IN RE HARRIS TEETER, LLC 2021-NCSC-80 Opinion of the Court factors such as “overcapacity, inadequacy or changes in state of the art, or poor design.” In re Westmoreland, 174 N.C.

2021In view of the fact that Harris Teeter does not appear to contend that the Commission failed to properly address the issue of physical impairment, we will focus the remainder of our analysis upon issues surrounding functional and economic obsolescence. ¶ 26 As a definitional matter, functional obsolescence is “a loss in value due to impairment of functional capacity . . . inherent in the property itself” stemming from IN RE HARRIS TEETER, LLC 2021-NCSC-80 Opinion of the Court factors such as “overcapacity, inadequacy or changes in state of the art, or poor design.” In re Westmoreland, 174 N.C.

2017Remaining Voluntariness Factors In evaluating the remainder of the factors relevant to the totality of the circumstances test, we find instructive our decision in State v. McKinney , 153 N.C.

2017App. 369 , 570 S.E.2d 238 (2002).

2017App. 94 , 97, 564 S.E.2d 599 , 602 (2002) (quoting Montgomery v. Montgomery , 32 N.C.

2017Furthermore, when the findings of fact are considered in their totality, the remainder of the hearing officer's findings were not simply recitations of testimony, and they identify ultimate facts-such as petitioner's poor performance on the field sobriety tests and his refusal to take the Toxilyzer breath test-" 'sufficient for the appellate court to determine that the judgment [was] adequately supported by competent evidence.' " In re Anderson , 151 N.C.

2017App. 94 , 97, 564 S.E.2d 599 , 602 (2002) (quoting Montgomery v. Montgomery , 32 N.C.

2009As a result of the fact that Defendant has not challenged Special Agent Allcox’s qualifications in the field of the chemical analysis of drugs and forensic chemistry and the fact that correctly identifying the relevant drugs was critical to the State’s case against Defendant, the remainder of our analysis necessarily focuses on issues revolving around the first step specified in Goode . *21 In examining the reliability of the challenged method of proof employed by Special Agent Allcox, “a court may look to testimony by an expert specifically relating to the reliability, may take judicial notic

2009As a result of the fact that Defendant has not challenged Special Agent Allcox’s qualifications in the field of the chemical analysis of drugs and forensic chemistry and the fact that correctly identifying the relevant drugs was critical to the State’s case against Defendant, the remainder of our analysis necessarily focuses on issues revolving around the first step specified in Goode . *21 In examining the reliability of the challenged method of proof employed by Special Agent Allcox, “a court may look to testimony by an expert specifically relating to the reliability, may take judicial notic

2009“Initially, the trial court should look to precedent for guidance in determining whether the theoretical or technical methodology underlying an expert’s opinion is reliable.” Howerton, 358 N.C. at 459 , 597 S.E.2d at 687 . “[W]e do not adhere exclusively to the formula, enunciated in Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C.

2009“Initially, the trial court should look to precedent for guidance in determining whether the theoretical or technical methodology underlying an expert’s opinion is reliable.” Howerton, 358 N.C. at 459 , 597 S.E.2d at 687 . “[W]e do not adhere exclusively to the formula, enunciated in Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C.

2009“Initially, the trial court should look to precedent for guidance in determining whether the theoretical or technical methodology underlying an expert’s opinion is reliable.” Howerton, 358 N.C. at 459 , 597 S.E.2d at 687 . “[W]e do not adhere exclusively to the formula, enunciated in Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C.

2009The remainder of our analysis of the second occurrence focused on demonstrating that the strike and the rape involved "two distinct occurrences," rather than a "greater offense and a lesser included offense." Id. at 420 , 291 S.E.2d at 861 .

2009The remainder of our analysis of the second occurrence focused on demonstrating that the strike and the rape involved "two distinct occurrences," rather than a "greater offense and a lesser included offense." Id. at 420 , 291 S.E.2d at 861 .

2004App. 565 , 572-73, 571 S.E.2d 65 , 70-71 (2002) (overruling respondent's assignment of error to the trial court's decision to remove respondent from courtroom for repeated misconduct without providing a means for him to personally participate in the remainder of the hearing); In re Murphy, 105 N.C.

2004App. 651 , 656-57, 414 S.E.2d 396 , 399-400 (affirming trial court's denial of motion by counsel to have respondent transported from incarceration facility to testify in termination of parental rights hearing), aff'd per curiam, 332 N.C. 663 , 422 S.E.2d 577 (1992).

2004App. 565 , 572-73, 571 S.E.2d 65 , 70-71 (2002) (overruling respondent's assignment of error to the trial court's decision to remove respondent from courtroom for repeated misconduct without providing a means for him to personally participate in the remainder of the hearing); In re Murphy, 105 N.C.

2004App. 651 , 656-57, 414 S.E.2d 396 , 399-400 (affirming trial court's denial of motion by counsel to have respondent transported from incarceration facility to testify in termination of parental rights hearing), aff'd per curiam, 332 N.C. 663 , 422 S.E.2d 577 (1992).

2004App. 651 , 656-57, 414 S.E.2d 396 , 399-400 (affirming trial court's denial of motion by counsel to have respondent transported from incarceration facility to testify in termination of parental rights hearing), aff'd per curiam, 332 N.C. 663 , 422 S.E.2d 577 (1992).