CONTENTS ADMINISTRATIVE LAW AND PROCEDURE 72 (NCI4th). Because some of respondent's assignments of error in an appeal from a superior court order reversing a decision of the State Personnel Commission presented errors of law, the Court of Appeals conducted a de novo review of those issues. Eury v. N.C. Employment Security Comm., ASSAULT AND BATTERY 2 (NCI4th). The trial court erred in directing verdict for defendant grocery store manager as to plaintiff's claim for assault and battery where the evidence tended to show that the manager accused plaintiff of stealing cigarettes, grabbed plaintiff's arm, and pulled him two aisles down toward the store office. Burwell v. Giant Genie Corp., 77 (NCI4th). Defendant is entitled to a new trial in a prosecution for assault on a police officer and obstruction of an officer where the trial court failed to provide the jury with the definition of assault. State v. Lineberger, ATTORNEYS AT LAW 48 (NCI4th). Where claimants gave deceased attorney funds to invest in a corporation and the attorney failed to do so, claimants were "investors" in a debtor-creditor relationship with the attorney and not "clients" in a fiduciary relationship customary to the practice of law and thus were not entitled to reimbursement from the Client Security Fund of the N.C. State Bar. In re Gertzman, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 318 (NCI4th). Review of this case pursuant to an Anders brief submitted by defendant's attorney was permitted even though defendant had not been given the necessary documents to conduct his own review of the case where the attorney was unable to locate defendant and deliver the documents to him. State v. Mayfield, COSTS 30 (NCI4th). Defendant was entitled to recover attorney's fees under G.S. 6-21.1 only for the attorney's prosecution of defendant's counterclaim and not for defending plaintiff's claim. Mishoe v. Sikes, CRIMINAL LAW 139 (NCI4th). Though failure to inform defendant of the applicable mandatory minimum sentence for drug trafficking violated G.S. 15A-1022(a)(6) and defendant's constitutional right to have a guilty plea entered voluntarily and understandingly, such error was harmless where defendant was informed of the maximum sentence he could receive. State v. Bozeman, Defendant was not entitled to have his guilty plea set aside because the trial court incorrectly informed him he was facing a $50,000 fine and thereafter assessed total fines of $300,000 where defendant was indigent at the time of his plea. Ibid. 1170 (NCI4th). The trial court erred in considering as a nonstatutory aggravating factor for narcotics offenses that defendant involved a young person seventeen years of age since the youth was older than the statutorily prescribed maximum age of sixteen. State v. Bozeman, DISCOVERY AND DEPOSITIONS 52 (NCI4th). The trial court erred by improperly construing respondent Employment Security Commission's admissions and by concluding that respondent had failed to make a formal offer of proof of testimony excluded by those admissions. Eury v. N.C. Employment Security Comm., DIVORCE AND SEPARATION 417 (NCI4th). The trial court had subject matter jurisdiction over petitioner's motion in the cause alleging that respondent was in arrears on his child support obligation and requesting that a child support lien be attached to his real estate even though the minor child had become emancipated. Fitch v. Fitch, EVIDENCE AND WITNESSES 1788 (NCI4th). The trial court abused its discretion in denying defendant's motion for a mistrial where the prosecutor was twice warned and instructed not to bring up the matter of defendant's having been offered a polygraph examination, and the prosecutor subsequently asked a prosecution witness if defendant had been offered a polygraph examination. State v. Moose, FALSE IMPRISONMENT 9 (NCI4th). A reasonable juror could conclude that conducting a pat-down search of plaintiff customer against his will in plain view of other customers was an unreasonable detention even if it was for a reasonable length of time. Burwell v. Giant Genie Corp., INSURANCE 522 (NCI4th). The three-year limitation provided in G.S. 20- 279.21(b)(3)(b) sets out a minimum period of time during which insolvency protection must be afforded and which may be extended by agreement between the insurer and insured, rather than establishing the latest time at which an insured may claim uninsured motorist coverage following insolvency of the tortfeasor's liability carrier. N.C. Ins. Guaranty Assn. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., Under an insurance policy providing that a vehicle is uninsured if the liability insurer "is or becomes insolvent" without specifying any period of time, an uninsured motorist claim may not be barred even though the minimum period specified in G.S. 20-279.21 (b)(3)(b) has elapsed. Ibid. Plaintiff's claim against defendant for uninsured motorist coverage as a consequence of insolvency of the tortfeasor's insurer accrued on the date the insurer was declared insolvent rather than the date of the accident. Ibid. 690 (NCI4th). Where defendant UIM carrier compensated plaintiff for her damages up to the limit of its liability, defendant could not be required to pay any more as prejudgment interest. Baxley v. Nationwide Mutual Ins. Co., KIDNAPPING 16 (NCI4th). The evidence of restraint was sufficient to require submission of a charge of first-degree kidnapping to the jury where defendant tied the victim's hands and feet with electrical cord before assaulting him by plugging the cord with bare wires into an outlet. State v. Carrillo, 21 (NCI4th). The State met its burden of proving that defendant restrained or confined the victim with the intent of terrorizing him where defendant put a knife under the victim's throat, beat him, bound the victim's hands and feet with a stripped electrical cord, plugged the stripped cord into an outlet five separate times, asked the victim repeatedly whether he had knifed a friend, and poured beer over the victim's head while the electrical cord was plugged into an outlet. State v. Carrillo, LIMITATIONS, REPOSE, AND LACHES 48 (NCI4th). Plaintiffs' claim against a boat manufacturer for unfair practices accrued at the time they purchased the boat and was not barred by the four-year statute of limitations of G.S. 75-16.2 where it was instituted within two years after the purchase. Barbee v. Atlantic Marine Sales & Service, NEGLIGENCE 18 (NCI4th). The trial court properly dismissed plaintiff's negligence complaint against defendant whose grandson cut plaintiff with a knife 37 times where plaintiff alleged that defendant knew her grandson was intoxicated, visibly emotionally disturbed, and had a history of committing acts of violence against plaintiff, and that defendant provided her grandson the use of her car when she reasonably should have known that he was likely to travel to plaintiff's residence and commit some act of violence upon her, but there was no allegation of any facts supporting any nexus of foreseeability between defendant's act of lending her automobile to her grandson and plaintiff's subsequent injury. Winters v. Lee, NOTICE 4 (NCI4th). A notice of appeal to the Property Tax Commission was not considered filed on the postmark date where the postmark was affixed by a postal meter in the office of the taxpayer's representative rather than by the U. S. Postal Service. In re Appeal of Bass Income Fund, PRINCIPAL AND AGENT 8 (NCI4th). Since defendant grocery store manager was acting within the scope of his employment by the corporate defendant when he allegedly assaulted plaintiff customer, the manager's actions will be imputed to the corporate defendant under the doctrine of respondeat superior. Burwell v. Giant Genie Corp., 45 (NCI4th). The trial court properly entered summary judgement for defendant farm in an action to recover for injuries arising out of an automobile accident where the evidence established that the individual defendant was not acting within the scope of his employment with defendant farm at the time the accident occurred. Felts v. Hoskins, PUBLIC OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES 36 (NCI4th). The trial court erred in directing verdict for defendant off-duty police officer on plaintiff's claim for assault and battery where the officer participated in a pat-down search of plaintiff after plaintiff was accused of shoplifting. Burwell v. Giant Genie Corp. 58 (NCI4th). The trial court properly entered summary judgment for defendant technical college in plaintiff's "whistleblower" action based upon her transfer to a secretarial position she considered less attractive than her former secretarial position following her protected activity of reporting employee misuse or misappropriation of State property. Kennedy v. Guilford Tech. Community College, 65 (NCI4th). Respondent state agency gave petitioners sufficient notice of the reasons for their investigatory suspension where petitioners admitted to their superior that they had been arrested for growing marijuana, and petitioners were placed on investigatory suspension by letter informing them that the reason for their suspension was the "need to investigate allegations concerning your personal conduct which could affect your work status." Eury v. N.C. Employment Security Comm., 67 (NCI4th). Where a state employee has engaged in off-duty criminal conduct, the agency need not show actual harm to its interests to demonstrate just cause for the employee's dismissal but must demonstrate that the dismissal is supported by the existence of a rational nexus between the type of criminal conduct committed and the potential adverse impact on the employee's ability to perform for the agency. Eury v. N.C. Employment Security Comm., SEARCHES AND SEIZURES 44 (NCI4th). An officer's encounter with defendant was a constitutionally permissible seizure, and the trial court properly denied defendant's motion to suppress evidence from that confrontation, where defendant turned into a parking lot before a license check point and did not get out of his car, the officer approached defendant, asked why he had pulled into the lot, and asked to see defendant's driver's license, defendant could produce no license and failed a field sobriety test, and the officer then placed defendant under arrest. State v. Johnston, SOCIAL SERVICES AND PUBLIC WELFARE 24 (NCI4th). Federal Medicaid law permits but does not require states to implement resource spend-down and the North Carolina Medicaid plan does not require DHR to utilize resource spend-down when evaluating Medicaid eligibility. Elliot v. N.C. Dept. of Human Resources, UNFAIR COMPETITION OR TRADE PRACTICES 39 (NCI4th). The evidence was sufficient for the jury in an action for unfair and deceptive acts with regard to a boat manufactured by defendant where the jury could conclude that, once defendant realized that the problem with plaintiff's boat could not be remedied, it seized upon an inapplicable commercial use exclusion in a bad faith attempt to avoid responsibility for the defective boat. Barbee v. Atlantic Marine Sales & Service, 46 (NCI4th). The trial court's entry of judgments against defendant boat manufacturer for treble damages on an unfair and deceptive practices claim and against defendant boat seller for breach of implied warranty combined with the court's order that defendant manufacturer fully indemnify defendant seller improperly allowed plaintiff a double recovery. Barbee v. Atlantic Marine Sales & Service, 54 (NCI4th). The evidence and findings were sufficient to support the trial judge's award of attorney's fees in an unfair practices case involving a defective boat manufactured by defendant. Barbee v. Atlantic Marine Sales & Service, WORKERS' COMPENSATION 62 (NCI4th). The trial court erred in granting summary judgment for defendant power company on plaintiff's Woodson claim where a jury could conclude that defendant's act of sending a lineman up an electrical tower with faulty or incompatible safety equipment was substantially certain to result in the death of a lineman, based on the number of falls over the years experienced by defendant's lineman, and that defendant knew with substantial certainty that its continued use of only body-belts and pole straps as safety equipment would inevitably result in death or serious bodily injury. Mickles v. Duke Power Co., 69 (NCI4th). Plaintiff employee's evidence was insufficient to show that his supervisor was wantonly negligent in permitting the operation of a single-foot operated break-press by two persons when only one person could stop operation of the machine. McCorkle v. Aeroglide Corp., 357 (NCI4th). The Industrial Commission erred as a matter of law in concluding that defendants were not estopped from asserting N.C.G.S. 97-24's time bar in opposition to plaintiff's claim where, through its system of dealing with employee injuries, Dixie Furniture conveyed to plaintiff the understanding that she would be compensated for her work-related accidents and plaintiff was informed after the expiration of the two-year time period for filing workers' compensation claims that Dixie's carrier was denying coverage. Craver v. Dixie Furniture Co., 452 (NCI4th). A deputy commissioner's award was upheld where defendants argued that certain findings were supported by insufficient evidence and that the full Commission did not address the validity or correctness of the deputy commissioner's award, but want of jurisdiction was defendants' only asserted grounds for contesting the deputy commissioner's conclusions. Craver v. Dixie Furniture Co.,