overruling exception in North Carolina

2015Overruling defendant's objection, the trial court found that at the time of his statement, the defendant was alert, responsive and coherent and that "[h]is attending physician gave permission for [the] defendant to be interviewed. [The][d]efendant 'did not appear to be sleepy or confused nor did he hesitate to answer questions at any time.' " Id. at 19-20 , 277 S.E.2d at 529 .

2015Overruling defendant's objection, the trial court found that at the time of his statement, the defendant was alert, responsive and coherent and that "[h]is attending physician gave permission for [the] defendant to be interviewed. [The][d]efendant 'did not appear to be sleepy or confused nor did he hesitate to answer questions at any time.' " Id. at 19-20 , 277 S.E.2d at 529 .

2010In Wise , our Supreme Court explained that “the trial court’s overruling of defense counsel’s objection to the opinion testimony constituted an implicit finding that the witness was an expert.” Id. at 430 , 390 S.E.2d at 148 .

2010In Wise , our Supreme Court explained that “the trial court’s overruling of defense counsel’s objection to the opinion testimony constituted an implicit finding that the witness was an expert.” Id. at 430 , 390 S.E.2d at 148 .

2010Stated differently, “a finding that the witness is qualified as an expert is implicit in the trial court’s ruling admitting the opinion testimony.” Id. at 431 , 390 S.E.2d at 148 .

1990We find our holding in State v. Bullard, 312 N.C. 129 , 322 S.E.2d 370 (1984), instructive on this issue.

1990We find our holding in State v. Bullard, 312 N.C. 129 , 322 S.E.2d 370 (1984), instructive on this issue.

1968There is no statute which required Judge Sharp to find the facts on this ‘motion to dismiss and special demurrer,’ and in the absence of a request that findings of fact be made, ‘it is presumed that the Judge, upon proper evidence, found facts to support his judgment.’ Holcomb v. Holcomb, 192 N.C. 504 , 135 S.E. 287 .” See also Supplement, Yol. 1 Strong’s N. C.

1968There is no statute which required Judge Sharp to find the facts on this ‘motion to dismiss and special demurrer,’ and in the absence of a request that findings of fact be made, ‘it is presumed that the Judge, upon proper evidence, found facts to support his judgment.’ Holcomb v. Holcomb, 192 N.C. 504 , 135 S.E. 287 .” See also Supplement, Yol. 1 Strong’s N. C.

1966As to injury by accident, see Pardue v. Tire Co., 260 N.C. 413 , 132 S.E. 2d 747 .

1966As to injury by accident, see Pardue v. Tire Co., 260 N.C. 413 , 132 S.E. 2d 747 .

1937The appellant assigns as error the overruling of its exception to the denial of its motion for judgment of nonsuit, but a consideration of the evidence, in the light of the decisions of this Court on a former appeal in this case (Blackwell v. Bottling Co., 208 N. C., 751 ), and in Collins v. Bottling Co., 209 N. C., 821 ; Enloe v. Bottling Co., 208 N. C., 305 ; and Hampton v. Bottling Co., 208 N. C., 331 , warrants the conclusion that the evidence was sufficient to be submitted to the jury.

1937The appellant assigns as error the overruling of its exception to the denial of its motion for judgment of nonsuit, but a consideration of the evidence, in the light of the decisions of this Court on a former appeal in this case (Blackwell v. Bottling Co., 208 N. C., 751 ), and in Collins v. Bottling Co., 209 N. C., 821 ; Enloe v. Bottling Co., 208 N. C., 305 ; and Hampton v. Bottling Co., 208 N. C., 331 , warrants the conclusion that the evidence was sufficient to be submitted to the jury.

1937The appellant assigns as error the overruling of its exception to the denial of its motion for judgment of nonsuit, but a consideration of the evidence, in the light of the decisions of this Court on a former appeal in this case (Blackwell v. Bottling Co., 208 N. C., 751 ), and in Collins v. Bottling Co., 209 N. C., 821 ; Enloe v. Bottling Co., 208 N. C., 305 ; and Hampton v. Bottling Co., 208 N. C., 331 , warrants the conclusion that the evidence was sufficient to be submitted to the jury.

1937The appellant assigns as error the overruling of its exception to the denial of its motion for judgment of nonsuit, but a consideration of the evidence, in the light of the decisions of this Court on a former appeal in this case (Blackwell v. Bottling Co., 208 N. C., 751 ), and in Collins v. Bottling Co., 209 N. C., 821 ; Enloe v. Bottling Co., 208 N. C., 305 ; and Hampton v. Bottling Co., 208 N. C., 331 , warrants the conclusion that the evidence was sufficient to be submitted to the jury.

1891In the well-considered case of Battle v. Mayo , 102 N.C. 413 , it was held that where there is reference by consent, the findings of fact by the referee adopted by the trial judge are final, and will not be reviewed here.

1889Counsel for the plaintiffs insisted that the rule laid down for this Court by Justice Merrimon in Ely v. Early, 94 N. C., 1 , as applicable where actions are brought to . correct deeds, must govern this case.

1889It is never correct to say, as we think, that they must be proved to the satisfaction of ihe jury.” The exact language used by the Court in Lea v. Pearce, supra, was adopted in the instruction given by the Court below in McLeod v. Bullard, 84 N. C., 515 , and, being excepted to, was approved by this Court in overruling the exception.