Case law

State v. Cantwell

142 N.C. 604 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Oct 23, 1906

The exemption allowed under the Revisal, see. 1980, was clearly intended to apply to a class of persons who never enjoyed such an immunity before its .enactment, and not to one protected by prior legislation and in whose … He may waive it, and when be does, be is as much qualified as if tbe exemption bad never existed.

Woodall v. Western Wake Highway Commission

176 N.C. 377 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 6, 1918

All of the town of Cary is within the road district, and gets the benefit of the road; but *384 we understand the contention is that, because Cary is an incorporated town, the property in it is immune from taxation for this … We may clearly see the importance of this testimony if the witness would have given a negative answer, but as the ruling is not reviewable by us we can grant no relief, and, therefore, it *395 is not necessary to further

Lyles v. City of Charlotte

344 N.C. 676 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 8, 1996

The General Assembly has provided that sovereign immunity may be waived by participating in a local government risk pool, and has provided for certain requirements to establish such an organization. … However, N.C.G.S. § 160A-485(a) establishes an exception to the common law rule: Any city is authorized to waive its immunity from civil liability in tort by the act of purchasing liability insurance.

Meyer v. Walls

347 N.C. 97 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Sep 5, 1997

Under the doctrine of sovereign immunity, the State is immune from suit absent waiver of immunity. E.g., Gammons v. N.C. Dep’t of Human Resources, 344 N.C. 51, 54 , 472 S.E.2d 722, 723 (1996). … This argument is contrary to clearly established law. Although a plaintiff may not receive a double recovery, he may seek a judgment against the agent or the principal or both. See Bowen v. Iowa Nat’l Mut. Ins.

Hendricks v. Leslie Fay, Inc.

273 N.C. 59 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Feb 28, 1968

The tendency of our law, indicated above, would, however, clearly be toward the imposition of vicarious responsibility. … Immunity from vicarious liability would permit any store keeper to subject his customers to the hazards of an irresponsible detective agency without peril to himself.

State v. Ward

364 N.C. 133 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 17, 2010

Relying on the National Academy Report in part, the Court commented that “[f]orensic evidence is not uniquely immune from the risk of manipulation,” id. at —, 129 S. … Clearly, the General Assembly contemplated that anyone manufacturing a counterfeit substance would make it look as close to the genuine product as possible.

Gilliland v. Board of Education.

141 N.C. 482 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · May 22, 1906

And it is not alone by oral expression that this reputation is evidenced and established. … the general reputation and opinion that said ancestor was qualified under the laws to do so.

Delconte v. State

313 N.C. 384 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · May 7, 1985

Sections 556-558, and 560 of Part 2 require qualified nonpublic schools to maintain certain annual attendance and disease immunization records, to operate on a certain regular schedule, to be subject to certain health and … Therefore, we hold that G.S. 115C-555(4) refers only to established educational institutions.

State v. Logner

297 N.C. 539 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jul 12, 1979

However, defendants by their cross-examination clearly opened the door to the questions on re-direct examination and should not be heard to complain. G.S. § 15A-1443(c). … We cannot perceive how the jury could have understood the trial judge to be stating his opinion that a conspiracy had been established.

State v. Sargeant

365 N.C. 58 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Mar 11, 2011

Although the jury had been death-qualified, the State elected not to offer evidence of aggravating circumstances. … The record establishes that Dalrymple had personal knowledge and never recanted his statement.

Town of Boone v. State

369 N.C. 126 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 21, 2016

“[T]he doctrine of sovereign immunity... is a common law theory or defense established by this Court,” so that, “when there is a clash between... constitutional rights and sovereign immunity, the constitutional rights must … Park Newspapers of Lumberton, Inc., 317 N.C. 579, 588 , 347 S.E.2d 25, 31-32 (1986))), this Court has “clearly establish[ed] the principle that sovereign immunity [cannot] operate to bar direct constitutional claims,” particularly

FIRST UNION NAT. BANK OF CAROLINA v. Hackney

266 N.C. 17 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 15, 1965

Stated from the viewpoint of the parent, it is a privilege, but only a qualified one." In accord: Brennecke v. Kilpatrick, 336 S.W.2d 68 (Mo.); Palcsey v. Tepper, 71 N.J.Super. 294 , 176 A.2d 818 ; Davis v. … The immunity of the parent usually has been predicated upon the premise that to allow such an action against a parent would either disrupt the tranquillity of the domestic establishment or subvert parental control and discipline

State v. . Moore

104 N.C. 714 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Sep 5, 1889

Iowa, 18 Wallace, 137) tend to establish the doctrine on the one hand that the Legislature cannot prohibit one from carrying on a lawful occupation under the guise, which is palpably false, of protecting the public health … On the other hand, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania decided that a law containing a similar prohibition was clearly constitutional, and valid as an exercise of the police power. Powell v. Commonwealth, 114 Penn., 265 .

Carter Ex Rel. Clap v. City of Greensboro

249 N.C. 328 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jan 14, 1959

The duties the city assumed and the purposes it sought to accomplish, the special and limited class of tenants who could qualify for occupancy, and the substantial financial returns the city received under the contract placed … . . and persons acting on behalf of a federal agency in an official capacity, . . . in the service of the United States . .The same section provides: “‘Federal agency’ includes the executive departments, and independent establishment

State v. Abernathy

295 N.C. 147 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 6, 1978

This Court has held that a defendant is entitled to cross-examine an accomplice who has testified against him as to whether he has been promised immunity or leniency in return for his testimony, and that the denial of this … violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution.” 373 U.S. at 87 , 10 L.Ed. 2d at 218 . *157 The Supreme Court has not clearly

Ivey v. North Carolina Prison Department

252 N.C. 615 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 10, 1960

The doctrine of governmental immunity forbade the injured party to sue. This rule of governmental immunity was applied in Clodfelter v. … Governmental immunity was waived in a limited area.

Robinson v. Goldsboro.

135 N.C. 382 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · May 11, 1904

The power to issue bonds for the purpose of establishing an electric plant (and we think this language includes making adequate provision for lighting the city) is expressly conferred subject to the approval of the qualified … It is clearly within the power of the General Assembly to restrict, which of course includes the power to prescribe, the terms upon which it may be exercised. Const., Art. 8, sec. 4. The judgment must be Affirmed.

Gill v. . Commissioners

160 N.C. 176 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 7, 1912

In a proceeding of this character, the burden is on the relator to clearly establish the right sought to be enforced." … Does the term embrace women, or only men and qualified voters or electors?

Perry v. Commissioners of Franklin County

148 N.C. 521 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Oct 21, 1908

Commissioners of Buncombe, ante 248, held that this restriction on the amount of the poll tax contained in section 1 shall be given the significance which its terms clearly import — that the State and county capitation tax … As to taxation within these special districts, it is theirs to observe or disregard the equation established by Article V in reference to State and county taxes, and to exceed or abide by the limit established in said article

State v. Mills

184 N.C. 694 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 8, 1922

It is fully recognized that in the trial of causes the testimony of a witness may be impeached by evidence of his bad character, and it is equally well established that before this is allowed the impeaching witness must qualify … Among these, the rule which regulates the admission of testimony offered to impeach the character of a witness is now so well established and so clearly defined that a departure from it must be regarded as a violation of